So apparently, the studio has nixed the alcoholism subplot from Iron Man 3. This is the second time it's been cut (it was supposed to be in Iron Man 2).

Now I'm not saying that they need to devote an entire film to the 'Demon in a Bottle' arc - but to disregard Stark's alcoholism entirely is to disrespect the character. In fact, if he isn't alcoholic, it's not the character.

http://www.hitfix.com/news/iron-man-3-director-says-tony-stark-alcoholism-subplot-was-nixed-by-the-studio

Shane Black says that it's possible for a future film - but given that that's pretty much what Jon Favreau said last time, it's getting might clear that Disney will never let it's cinematic superheroes have certain flaws (you know, the thing that made Marvel superheroes so interesting to begin with?).

Nope - these are the boy versions of the Disney Princesses, and you aren't going to see Belle stumbling around the castle with a fifth of Jack Daniels clutched in her fist.

For everyone that said Disney wouldn't change these characters - you are wrong.

@etragedy: What about the alcohol induced fight in Iron Man 2? Surely that was appropriate?

I have to say, I'm not that fussed about seeing Stark get smashed again. I'd rather just move on, we had a bit of drunkness already, and this isn't the same type of issues. He's got PTSD, not depression.

@backflip: It's not about depicting the drunkenness, but what alcohol did to his life - it almost cost him everything. And he certainly did go through a bout of depression in the late 1970s during that story arc.

there goes Tony seeing pink elephants. I guess they are thinking they are using too much existentialism for the Iron Man movies