Iron Man 2 Buzz Enters Critical, Confusing 'Beating Gwyneth Paltrow' Phase
For sheer, head-exploding Tuesday-morning WTF-ery, I direct thee to a curious kerfuffle involving The Onion, Ain't it Cool News, and the possibly punched face of Iron Man 2 co-star Gwyneth Paltrow. Am I dense or out of touch to stare enervated at my computer for a full two minutes before asking aloud what is going on here? Read on to join the confusion -- or deliver the answers. [Spoilers follow! Maybe?]
All I know is that the Onion News Network ran a story Monday called "Iron Man 2 Buzz Heats Up Over Rumors Gwenyth [Sic] Paltrow Gets Punched In Face," which cites a presumably imagined Ain't it Cool News Story from March headlined, "Gwyneth Paltrow on the Receiving End of an Iron Man fist in IRON MAN 2?" Haha. Or something. It's nowhere online, and considering the source, it's just a satirical fabrication. Right?
Except AICN editor Harry Knowles published his own namedroppy reaction overnight, not only validating the rumor scourge but also claiming to have personally bartered a deal with Iron Man 2 director Jon Favreau to take the Paltrow rumor down:
The hard news organization reported on a story that frankly we had to remove, that reported upon the rumor that Ms Paltrow comes to harm in IRON MAN 2. Honestly, this story was just an unspecific rumor and after I dug a bit, I decided it wasn't the kind of story I wanted to have on the site. Glorifying violence against Gwenyth's lovely and curious face... as much fun as it is - I just had to take it down after Jon Favreau personally called me crying about it. I was so concerned about Jon - that I told him, I'd pull the story if he showed me IRON MAN 2 today. And I did see IRON MAN 2 today.
Unfortunately - in order that I see the film, I had to essentially swear not to review the film till the London World premiere. [...] I begged everyone involved to just let me comment on the sheer horror unleashed upon Ms Paltrow in a few scenes - but Jon insists that we keep it all spoiler free for now. I get that. I do. But I will say this - Ms Paltrow has her share of trauma - so be happy, IRON MAN 2 delivers on that front... perhaps not quite to the extent that the most sadistic voyeurs out there would like - most of the meat remains upon her bones, but ya know - Paltrow nails Pepper Potts. For that she deserves to stick around, which I won't confirm as being the case at the end or not. You'll see soon enough.
Huh? So let me get this straight: ONN springboarded off an AICN story dated March 12 in the video, but which was subsequently deleted, resulted in Knowles getting to see Iron Man 2 more than a month later? And for once, The Onion isn't making up a news story? I am so confused. So are several of Knowles's commenters, one of whom admonished: "Because Harry flits between name dropping, and pseudo-realism in so many stories, it's hard to even tell which of the clear statements are real or should be filed under artistic license. [...] Harry desperately needs to lay off the chocolate coated sugar bombs before posting."
Either way, if Paramount and Marvel didn't single-handedly engineer this publicity grab themselves, they really should have. Or at least take some credit; this is really 100 times more thought-provoking than anything Paltrow can say in a Harper's Bazaar cover story.