Do You Want To See Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts Put On The Iron Man Suit?

News

by Kevin Jagernauth
July 18, 2012 4:28 PM
17 Comments

Well, we suppose it's not as out there as Mickey Rourke playing Ivan Vanko, or a talking raccoon and superhero tree in "Guardians Of The Galaxy," but it is still an idea that is enough to give one pause. Marvel has been thinking about strapping Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts into Tony Stark's Iron Man suit.

The revelation comes courtesy of the LA Times who were at Comic-Con over the weekend, and picked up an interesting little nugget from Marvel honco Kevin Feige and director/producer Jon Favreau during their presentation in Hall H. "Everyone at this table thinks it would be the coolest thing in the world to see Pepper get in the suit at some point," Feige said. "We almost did it a few times; we talked about it a lot. I think we all share your enthusiasm for that, and we all want to see Gwyneth kick a little ass," added Favreau.

And this isn't without precedence. Back in 2007, in the comics, Tony Stark built her a suit of armor called Rescue (Marvel wanted to use the name Iron Maiden, but for obvious reasons, they couldn't), and under the code name Hera, Potts joined the Fifty States Initiative which basically set up an Avengers style team in every state. She was part of The Order in California.

Anyway, do you want to see Pepper Potts move from being the person who keeps Tony Stark honest to fight alongside him (and/or The Avengers)? Or is that just a step too far? Does this image of the two from Invincible Iron Man #29 change your mind? Weigh in below.

News

More: Gwyneth Paltrow, Marvel, Iron Man 3

17 Comments

| Reply
Daniel | February 14, 2013 2:28 AMReply

that isnt steping it too far... i was just talk about it with my friends and we are all for pepper to strap the suit on along side tony n roddy...... i'm axious for the 3rd film to come out hopefully she suits up....
Lee | July 19, 2012 1:35 AMReply

you whine when the movie isn't according to the comic books, you whine when it is. People, please.
Harvey | July 19, 2012 3:49 AM

Lee should be president. He says the only politician that speaks the truth.
JD | July 18, 2012 8:36 PMReply

I would rather see her with her head in a box (a la Seven) or getting cut open (Contagion) but seriously isn't the point of her character to look good in the background and have the occasional witty discourse with Downey Jr
Fjord | July 18, 2012 8:03 PMReply

Sure, if they replace Gwyneth Paltrow with someone who isn't LAME
Pete | July 18, 2012 5:30 PMReply

I say "nein". Potts could still kick ass in some other way - no need to put on a "super suit" for it.
J | July 18, 2012 5:28 PMReply

No! The less Iron Man suits there are flying around the more special Tony Stark's alter ego will be.
J | July 18, 2012 5:20 PMReply

@Christian, I very much doubt their only justification is that it would be "cool". Why is it childish to implement something from the comics into the film? And it "prooves" Marvel's creative process is idiotic? Why not wait for the results. And their recent string of films has been so successful, I'd never call their decisions idiotic. Clearly they're doing exceptionally well.
Mike | July 19, 2012 3:26 PM

Zinjo, Marvel's 'cinematic universe' is all being planned and produced directly by Marvel, the 'rights owners' in this case own the entire comic business too. DC is a subsidiary of the same company as Warner Brothers, they don't have a strategic plan tied right into the comics business the same was as Marvel but it's the same situation, the rights belong to the same company that publishes the comics.
Zinjo | July 18, 2012 7:03 PM

Is it Marvel or is it the film makers with the rights from Marvel? The stupidity and the success are equally the responsibility of those who have been allowed to develop their licensing rights that they have purchased from Marvel. The Batman license has seen both stupid camp to outstanding gritty drama. None of those results can be attributed to the DC comics publishers / rights owners...
Christian | July 18, 2012 5:08 PMReply

It's a childish idea and prooves how idiotic the creative process at Marvel might be. They justify it by referring to it as potentially being "cool"...? Call me a fanboy, but Nolan's character developments have, shall we say, a little bit more depth and thematic logic than being ... "cool". This smells like an excuse to sell action figures!
Matthew | July 18, 2012 8:31 PM

agree with maggie may
Maggie May | July 18, 2012 5:16 PM

You can't exactly judge Marvel's creative process based of an "idea" they may not actually come to pass, especially when this "idea" exist within the actual Marvic comic from 2007. And action figures are sold to boys, and I'm sure few boys tug at their mother's dress begging for them to go out and buy female action figures. My nephew is 5 and he is obsessed with super heroes, has all the action figures. And I tried to give him a Wonder Woman action figure and her threw it against the wall. It's not an excuse to sell action figures, it's called character development. And Nolan's Batman universe is emersed in reality, "with a little bit more depth and thematic logic," as you say, because that's the world he set out to create. Marvel, that is not the case. Talking raccoon, coming to a Marvel movie near you.
No | July 18, 2012 5:05 PMReply

Sure, the more female superheroes the better. Then she can team up with the Black Widow.
C | July 18, 2012 4:47 PMReply

I'd want to see it. I don't care for Paltrow, by any measure, but I actually like her as and her character Pepper Potts. It be a great idea.
Cinematic_high | July 18, 2012 4:46 PMReply

Yes...I want to see that....it'll make me forget about Sky Captain...
Daniel | July 18, 2012 4:38 PMReply

I'm sorry. The idea of Gwyneth Paltrow as an action heroine is too laughable to consider.