I used to know Johansson when she starred in Michael Bay's 2005 The Island.

I have some ample experience with the Black Widow character from Marvel Comics, and I think it's the perfect choice for Johansson, who ironically co-starred in another comic book adaption, the box office bomb The Spirit with Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury cameo in IM2).

She has shown small flashes of skill (mainly in her Woody Allen collaborations) but I agree that Emily Blunt was the better choice.

I won't go as far to say as Scarlett can't act, but nothing she's done (besides the vastly overrated "Lost in Translation") is very convincing. I'm not saying Black Widow is an especially deep or challenging role but it already seems like an inorganic choice.

Still, I have to give Marvel props for getting Sam Jackson and Rourke on board for I.M.2. That can only be a good thing.

But….I was so set on Emily Blunt. She was so perfect.

this pisses me off so bad…emily blunt is not only beautiful but a good actress. You can only say one of those for Scarlotte! She is not a good actress. Look at her work in "He's just not that into you," or "The Spirit," i mean come on Jon. I know the schedule conflict was the main reason but they still could have found someone better to replace Blunt. I am disappointed

I love Emily Blunt so much, and I'm a big fan of Scarlett too, but Scarlett's last movie (comic book movie too) was "The Spirit". Enough said.

"Sorry, but this is a replacement that just doesn't compare"

Really?
At last I checked one of these two had a dynamic name making turn in a movie. Scarlett in Lost in Translation. As good as Emily Blunt is she doesnt have that. Sure, Scarlett was in The Spirit, but so was Sam Jackson and a host of others.
Emily Blunt has been the third name in The Devil Wears Prata and a host of things yet to be seen. I dont have a strong pull one way or the other but to say Emily Blunt is the clearly superior of the 2 is foolish. Given good direction and an interesting part Johansson can be great. (Woody Allen movies come to mind) And its assured she will get good direction in this because Favs is a GREAT director

Brad to Ross: Yes, really.

Glad about Sir Mickey, I hope '09 wasn't his last Academy Awards. As for Emily, wow!, I'm pretty bummed to learn of this. Scarlett is okay (I liked her work in "Girl with the Pearl Earring"); however, as for being able to kick serious butt? I'm definitely not a believer.

Does anyone else think Siena Miller would have been perfect for this role?

Ross To Brad

Ummm… Touche' ya got me

Brad to Ross: Ha, ha… Thanks for being a good sport. :)

I've seen plenty of Emily's movies and Emily is definitely the superior Actress IMO. Scarlett is beyond bland.

I dont think its gonna be a substantial role so dont think this makes a whole lot of difference.

I was REALLY wanting blunt to get this, my hope now is that scarlett atleast does a good enough job that its passible.

I imagine that the perception that american people have of Scarlett Johansson is different from mine (a brazilian). In the US, I assume she's everywhere – newspapers, TVs, ads etc. -, but here, well, I tend to focus on her acting. And even though I agree that her career wasn't as stellar as it used to be (on the "Lost in Translation"/"Girl With a Pearl Earring" days), I still think she can be quite engaging onscreen. She was as good in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" as the other actors, but people tend to think her acting was weak cause her character was "easier" than the other ones.
I also love Scarlett in "In Good Company", among other stuff.
Well, it's my hope that Scarlett delivers in "Iron Man 2". I still think she has a lot of potential.

Dear lord what a terrible mistake. Scarlett Johansson has no depth, she plays one character and one character only, the scarlet johansson trying to act character. She doesn't suck, but she certainly isn't very good. Blunt was a way better choice. Mistake on jon favreau's behalf, come on sir.

“So did you hear the news about Iron Man 2?”
“What?”
“Emily Blunt’s not going to do it. Instead it’s Scarlett Johansson!”
“So… Robert Downy Jr. is still in it right?”
“Yeah”
“Didn’t I hear something about Mickey Rourke signing up to be the bad guy?”
“Yup”
“And Favs is still behind the camera?”
“Sure… But SCARLETT JOHANSSON!!!!!!!!”
“Who does she play?”
“Black Widow”
“You mean the Russian lady in skin tight leather?!?!”
“Yeah”
“Just another quick question, you’re complaining that RDJ and Favreau are back and they are adding Rourke to be the villain and ScarJo in SKIN TIGHT LEATHER?”
“…I guess so”
“Emily Blunt may be the best thing since sliced bread, which ROCKS, but we’re not friends anymore. Leave my command center Post Haste!”

And Scene

All this bickering is pointless. I remember when Christopher Nolan chose Heath Ledger as the Joker, for "Batman Dark Knight" and I heard so many negative responses including myself, but when the movie came out Heath Ledger surprised everyone. Give Scarlett Johansson a chance. Ali Larter was originally casted to play Sue Storm for the Fantastic 4 movie but she turned it down. Ali chose to do Heroes the TV show instead.

Jessica Alba as Sue Storm was horrible.

Tricia Helfer (Caprica) from Battlestar Galactica as Emma Frost?. I like that.
Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Hitman) as Black Widow?.

This is a major TURN OFF. Who cares about Johansson's acting? This is not a dramatic role which is more of her forte. Black Widow has this chic and cutthroat look which Blunt posseses and Johansson doesn't, she has a blunt look. I'd rather see Rhona Mitra in this since obviously the studio isn't spending much money on this. Johansson just doesn't look sharp enough to me.