First look: Downey forges a bond with 'Iron Man' role

First look: Downey forges a bond with 'Iron Man' role

By Scott Bowles, USA TODAY

LOS ANGELES — Robert Downey Jr. is hardly the obvious choice to play an iconic crime fighter.

After all, this is the guy who became a poster boy for Hollywood excess, serving a year in prison on drug and alcohol-related charges and checking in and out of rehab like it was the Four Seasons.

But it is exactly that past, says director Jon Favreau (Elf), that makes Downey the only choice to play playboy millionaire and recovering alcoholic Tony Stark, aka Iron Man, the comic-book superhero who hits multiplexes next year.

"We didn't want to just go with a safe choice," Favreau says from the set of the film, due in theaters May 2, 2008. "The best and worst moments of Robert's life have been in the public eye. He had to find an inner balance to overcome obstacles that went far beyond his career. That's Tony Stark. Robert brings a depth that goes beyond a comic-book character who is having trouble in high school, or can't get the girl. Plus, he's simply one of the best actors around."

For his part, Downey is trying to become an iron man. At 42, he lifts
weights five days a week and practices martial arts to get in shape to play the hard-bodied Stark, an arms manufacturer who uses his ultimate weapon, a jet-powered, missile-launching suit of armor, to fight evil.

More important, Downey says, he's been working on his emotional stamina since coming out of rehab in 2002. His supporting roles in Good Night, and Good Luck and Zodiac have earned critical raves.

And anchoring a big-budget summer film such as Iron Man could go a long way toward cementing that return.

"I'm more diligent than I used to be," Downey says. "I want to show Jon he was right to have faith in me. Whatever questions might have arisen about my life weren't issues with him."

Nor with many fans, says Rob Morley of Comics2Film.com.

"Fans need the heart of the comic to be in" the movie, he says. "Tony Stark had a substance abuse problem. He was built up and torn down many times. I think when people heard Robert Downey was going to play the part, there was actually a big relief."

Downey knows a thing or two about comics, and he can get downright geeky when discussing them. He prefers Marvel to D.C. comics. He liked Iron Man, "but mainly through his appearance with Avengers." His favorite early heroes, he says, were the relatively obscure Sgt. Rock and Sgt. Fury.

It wasn't until Downey matured that he came to appreciate the man in the iron suit.

"He struggles with his lifestyle, he struggles with the drinking," Downey says of Stark. "He faces the same issues a lot of people do."

More important, Downey says, he's been working on his emotional stamina since coming out of rehab in 2002. His supporting roles in Good Night, and Good Luck and Zodiac have earned critical raves.

And anchoring a big-budget summer film such as Iron Man could go a long way toward cementing that return.

"I'm more diligent than I used to be," Downey says. "I want to show Jon he was right to have faith in me. Whatever questions might have arisen about my life weren't issues with him."

Nor with many fans, says Rob Morley of Comics2Film.com.

"Fans need the heart of the comic to be in" the movie, he says. "Tony Stark had a substance abuse problem. He was built up and torn down many times. I think when people heard Robert Downey was going to play the part, there was actually a big relief."

Downey knows a thing or two about comics, and he can get downright geeky when discussing them. He prefers Marvel to D.C. comics. He liked Iron Man, "but mainly through his appearance with Avengers." His favorite early heroes, he says, were the relatively obscure Sgt. Rock and Sgt. Fury.

It wasn't until Downey matured that he came to appreciate the man in the iron suit.

"He struggles with his lifestyle, he struggles with the drinking," Downey says of Stark. "He faces the same issues a lot of people do."

As Fool would say.....

Moving On, Moving On.

Pope revises limbo view, hope for unbaptized babies

I don't expect you to read the article below. Hell I didn't. My comments to it are at the bottom.

[quote]VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Benedict XVI has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching on limbo, approving a Vatican report released Friday that says there were "serious" grounds to hope that children who die without being baptized can go to heaven.

Theologians said the move was highly significant — both for what it says about Benedict's willingness to buck a long-standing tenet of Catholic belief and for what it means theologically about the Church's views on heaven, hell and original sin — the sin that the faithful believe all children are born with.

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Vatican | Catholic | Benedict | Church | Faith | Congregation | Doctrine

Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing" pastoral needs — primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.

While the report does not carry the authority of a papal encyclical or even the weight of a formal document from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it was approved by the pope on Jan. 19 and was published on the Internet — an indication that it was intended to be widely read by the faithful.

"We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies," the Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who is the commission's secretary-general, told The Associated Press. He stressed that there was no certainty, just hope.

The Commission posted its document Friday on Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service, the news agency of the American Bishop's Conference.

The document traces centuries of Church views on the fate of unbaptized infants, paying particular attention to the writings of St. Augustine — the 4th century bishop who is particularly dear to Benedict. Augustine wrote that such infants do go to hell, but they suffer only the "mildest condemnation."

In the document, the commission said such views are now out of date and there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision."

It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge."

No one can know for certain what becomes of unbaptized babies since Scripture is largely silent on the matter, the report said.

It stressed that none of its findings should be taken as diminishing the need for parents to baptize infants.

"Rather ... they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the church."

Vatican watchers hailed the decision as both a sensitive and significant move by Benedict.

"Parents who are mourning the death of their child are no longer going to be burdened with the added guilt of not having gotten their child baptized," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

He said the document also had implications for non-Christians, since it could be seen as suggesting that non-baptized adults could go to heaven if they led a good life.

"I think it shows that Benedict is trying to balance his view of Jesus as being central as the savior of the world ... but at the same time not saying what the Evangelicals say, that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus is going to hell," he said in a phone interview.

The International Theological Commission is a body of Vatican-appointed theologians who advise the pope and the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Benedict headed the Congregation for two decades before becoming pope in 2005.[/quote]

This is one of the reasons I have never cared for the Catholic faith. Now I am sure other faiths do the same thing, but I don't practice those faiths, I never have. I was raised as a Catholic though.

I just never understood how they could just simply change rules. And maybe that's why I find Catholicism to be full of it. They make there own rules. The bible doesn't add all that extra stuff. For example the day of the Sabbath.

It says you need to keep the Sabbath holy. It doesn't say you have to go to church. Hell, Catholics consider the Sabbath to tale pace in a good sized window. Saturday at 4:00pm to Sunday/Monday at Midnight. Now to me that says "If you can't make it to Sunday Mass then you can go to Saturday instead because the Sabbath is really no Saturday, but if can't make it to the Saturday mass then you can do the Sunday mass instead because the Sabbath is really on a Sunday.

To me it's full of crap. Just one of multiple examples that cause to to find the Catholic religion to be full of crap.

Deuce

Oh how I knew there would be backlash. And backlash there was. I thought it would have been worse though. But I stick by my thoughts.

I suck at proof reading.

While it won't make me look any better, I need to add one thing that I was 100% positive I added before That journal was edited a few times). I don't by any means condone his actions. Murder is wrong pure and simple. Doesn't matter what way you slice it. Murder is wrong. I don't condone his actions at all, but I still feel bad for him because I have been in that position....except for the whole getting ready to shoot up a school thing. Never ever had that go into my mind. Wished a couple times I would be able to beat the shit out of the ass holes just to make it all stop. But to even have the capability to go as far as he did. I would never have that inside me. At least I don't think I would. Scratch that. Anything is possible. Anyone is capable of anything. The setting just has to be right. The mood has to be right. And the right buttons need to be pushed in the right order.

There is a movie called "The Believer". I wasn't a big fan of it. But there was quote from it (I can't find). But it basically said you can't hate something until you understand it.

I am going to use the same principle. You can't possibly start to understand what emotions he has went through until you have experienced the things he has.

And as I said. IT didn't say bullying was a direct reason for him committing the mass murder. It didn't even say it was a reason. It simply said he was bullied, made fun of and teased. Here is one link. Here is another.

Hell, this doesn't just have to do with VT. It deals with any school. That shit shouldn't be tolerated. And it can prevent shootings from happening. I don't know if it's me being desensitised or not. But I have never felt bad for people I don't know. I could here about people dieing in a train crash or a car accident, anything. The only time I ever could feel emotional about a tradegy that took someone I didn't know is if someone close to me is some sort of way knew that person. That I could feel an emotional attachment. But damn it, when it's a school shooting. (Once again, any school shooting, I only felt attachment to VT once I heard he was bullied), I immediately feel sorry for the shooters when I find out they are bullied. Sure you can say..."That doesn't justify murder". And your right it doesn't. So lets look at it from another view. What justifies bullying? The excuse I heard was my allergies. That justifies making someone else's life miserable? Really? Does it? Why does it take blood shed to end something?

Can anyone answer that for me? Just five simple questions. Two from both sides. Two from the cause side and two from the effect side. One for the wrap up question.

Cause
What justifies bullying?
What justifies making someones life miserable?

Effect
What justifies murder?
What justifies ending human life?

What can be done about both?

Don't turn this around. Answer the questions.

New Tallest Building & VT Shooting

I happened to be on the Yahoo news site to see that headline. I decide to lick on it.

It's here by the way.

Basically it says Chicago will have the two tallest building in the nation.

This is what surprised me though.

It would also top New York's 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, under construction at the former World Trade Center site.

Does anyone else see this as a bad idea? I mean, I don't know the logic behind it, but I would imagine it's something like "We want to show the terrorists we are not scared". Personally I thought ground zero was going to stay the way it was as a memorial. But I to hear they are rebuilding to "Freedom Tower" of all things. To me that just sounds like an invitation for someone to get past airport security again to nail the place again.

Speaking on big news events. The VT shooting.

First I do not condone his actions.

Cho's family apologized to all the family's of the victims. I think that might be a first, first time I have ever heard about something like that happening. I am now awaiting the apologies from the victims family's of various school shootings for bullying the killer causing the killer to snap and shoot up the school. It's really a shame that bullying isn't handled in a stronger manor then it is now. Maybe the bullies should spend some time in jail. Does it seem harsh to maybe put an eight year old in Juvy for bullying another eight year old? Yeah it does. But if it prevented that bullied eight year old from going into school the next time and killing his/her classmates it wouldn't seem so harsh at all. So once again. Seem harsh? Maybe, but what if it could prevent a school shooting? I mean, when it happens after graduation it's called harassment correct?

Honestly after I read Cho was bullied (Although I didn't read that was a direct cause) I felt more sorry for him then I did for the victims. Maybe it from being bullied in school and living with praying every damn night in hopes of having a good the following day. A good day by the way being one where I went to school and wasn't picked on.

And is it a good thing or bad thing that Cho might have done more for the Virgina economy then Michigan Governor Jennifer Grandholm has done for the Michigan economy? I mean he created 33 new jobs. Four of them are teaching jobs. Plus all the officers called in and the EMT's. Although I admit I am confused on how he managed to shoot up two areas roughly two miles apart (Providing I heard the correct info), I didn't care to read up on the matter more though. Grandholm on the other hand......well I hear some other states (I am thinking Missouri or Wyoming) are finding a lot of people from Michigan there. Don't worry people, I have no idea how she managed to get reelected as Governor along with Stabenow, but rest assure, Grandholm will not be president of the US ever. She's Canadian.

There. Done with my more serious journal. So think about this as you stop reading the journal. Next time you encounter someone in the real world. Maybe say "Hi". It might take them out of a shitty mood. Maybe ask them how they are doing. Might do the same. But next time you ever are about to make fun of someone, doesn't matter who. Ask yourself this one question. If not throwing out the insult prevented a shooting or a world wide tragedy, would it be worth it? We shouldn't be learning lessons the hard way. It shouldn't take mass blood shed for people to be nicer to each other. Lets stop the "shouldn't". Lets make it a "won't". It won't take mass blood shed get people to be nicer to one another.

And I am still waiting for the apology's from the family's of the victims for helping the shooter snap.

R.I.P. Seung-Hui Cho. Someone has to show some compassion toward you. And I have no problem being the person to do it.

Berry gets a star on the walk of fame.

YAY![/sarcasm]

Alright, actually, this is bad. This is very bad. This could hurt future X-Men movies greatly. Now she has some statues and a star and you can bet your ass she will make sure Fox know's that she has both items to ensure she gets a bigger role and more money for the next X-Men movie.

But wait. Didn't she say before X-3 was released that she was done with X-Men movies? I bet it was the fact that she did Catwomen (Bombed) and figured X-3 would turn out to be crap and make no money. But it was awesome and made lots of money. So now she said she would come back for another X-Men movie.

Well of course the price has to be right and just like Sony probably would for Tobey Fox would probably up Halley's money.

Well we can always hope Marvel just gets the rights back to all their franchises, last thing we need is another crappy Spider-Man movie. Two crappy Spider-Man movies have been painful enough for a Spider-Man fan like me to watch. What a travest.

Maybe we can at least get another Punisher movie. And keep an eye out for Iron Man. That movie is hugely important to Marvel.