Cool News
IRON MAN 2!! How Much Is A Golden Globe Winning, Oscar Nominated Actor Worth To Marvel?? Will Another Actor Drop Out??
Merrick here...
This subject has always fascinated me: What's an actor/performer actually worth?
Is it unreasonable to pay actors millions upon millions upon millions of dollars to appear in a film or TV show? Are actors/performers hideously overpaid already?
At face value, I can see that 'ACTOR X' making 15 million for a movie seems indulgent and OTT in a reality where tens of thousands of jobs are lost (in The Sates alone) every week.
On the other hand, I also see it as simple, understandable business: if paying 'ACTOR X' 15 million dollars brings in $25 million in ticket sales - whether by virtue of the actor's presence, or the visibility he/she brings to a project - then high salaries make sense in an investment/return sorta way.
What do you guys think?
PLEASE NOTE: the numbers thrown around above do not relate, in any way, to the following report.
A few weeks back we learned that Samuel L. Jackson might not be reprising his Nick Fury role in IRON MAN 2 because Marvel couldn't/won't cough up the money to bag him. More details on this HERE.
Around the same time, we learned that Mickey Rourke was also up for a significant role in IRON MAN 2 (details HERE). Now comes word that Marvel seems to be lowballing Rourke as well.
Then there is comeback kid Mickey Rourke, who is poised to follow his Golden Globe-winning performance in "The Wrestler" with an offer to play the main villain in "Iron Man 2" — but at a lowball opening offer of $250,000 from Marvel; Marvel’s tactics have already prompted Samuel L. Jackson to swear off playing Nick Fury because of a similarly low offer.
...says THIS WRITE-UP in Variety.
Yeouch!
Now I'm no agent, but common sense dictates this isn't the best time to extend lackluster offers to someone who just won a Best Actor Golden Globe for THE WRESTLER & is Oscar nominated for the same.
What gives?
So, does this mean we won't be seeing Mickey in IRON MAN 2 after all? Are Marvel's "money problems" really this severe? Are they just being cheap asses? Or, both? Above all, is Marvel running the risk of de-coolifying their projects with all of these funky goings ons?
Stay tuned...
-
+ Expand All
-
cheap assclowns are ruining their franchises!!
-
And Robert downey's gay ass made the movie even more gay. semi effiminiate midget does not make a convincing playboy or a superhero.
-
news drop last week?
-
Not that he is worth it- but its payable later and it will be nothign out of pocket
-
Variety look to be saying that Sam Jackson has now passed on the role. Last I heard Marvel were refusing to comment because negotiations were still open. Did I miss something?
-
When Marvel's movie division starts to suck almost as bad as Joe Quesada.
-
Certain actors were and are always worth it...Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Cruise, Roberts, Hanks, Mel Gibson, Will Smith, Jim Carrey, Eddie Murphy, Willis, Eastwood (he usually takes backend) and a few others. It's simple math...they usually bring in the bucks and especially overseas!
-
If you're going to put an actor as a major character in a sequel to a very successful first installment of a franchise, 250k is an insult. If they're going to offer that, then he should get a cut of the profits at least. I think all contracts should be a base salary and performance bonus based on a percentage box office for major actors.
-
Marvel is fucking up big time with the way they are jewing down these actors.
WTF??? -
bad production. Working alongside Sony Avi Arad and group did enough damage to the character lineup. Now with bigass dollar figs to be made who wants to share? I'm for cash for the amount of screen time be spent well, but when you look at the box office potential . . . provided its a good movie to begin with. I'm sure there's some latent HULK fears in there. Now onto the economy and an actor's worth . . . there should be special "luxury" taxes on actors, sport figures and corporations to that things do not go out of hand. I applaud the ones that make money and give back in big ways - and many do. But for those that cheat the system - and this is mainly for the other end of the spectrum in big business - there needs to be some force to give back once your well past the need for more cash to buy that next island.
-
Always? I wouldn't pay Eddie Murphy, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Sly Stallone or Jim Carry 20 million to be in a movie today. They're out of their prime and there's no guarantee you'll get out of the red with salaries like that. No Way.
-
well, thats bollocks, but come on. its worth a bigger slice of the bedget to get these guys in....Actors are far more important to the film than effects, even in stuff like this.
knock a million off the effects budget and get the actors you NEED to make this work. ill watch great actors with shit effects and smile.... ill watch shit actors with amazing effects and give up on the series. -
If this is like their third time doing this as far as cash goes, then yeah.
-
Any news on the Thor casting? Cap America news? What happened to Ant Man?
-
First they were having trouble with bringing back Favreau as the were lowballing him. Then they lost Terrence Howard due to alledged lowballing. Then Samuel L. Jackson. Now they are lowballing Mickey Rourke. Catching on to a trend?
-
The LARGER problem is that they canned the writers from IM1 (WHY?!) and they're going with the disastrous 2 Bad Guy plot recipe from Spiderman films. (WHY?!) Also, since when is 250G's not enough dough for a has been-actor? No one seems up in arms about Sam Rockwell's salary, and THAT guy ALWAYS delivers the good. Rourke is lucky to get the offer.
-
"jewing down?"
Why don't you go deny the holocaust with Mel Gibson, asshat. -
Iron Man 1 was successful without Mickey Rourke and Marvel's low offer means they think Iron Man 2 will be just as successful without Mickey Rourke AKA Comeback Prince. The main money is going To Robert Downey Junior AKA Comeback KING!
-
They should pay Sam at least 2 million to play Fury or work a deal that throws his Avengers rate in there too. But fuck Mickey Rourke. I just don't see him as The Crimson Dynamo or Whiplash. He'd just phone it in for the paycheck anyhow.
-
Now I'm not so sure. This is Samuel L. Jackson. That son of a bitch will be in ANYTHING and you can't figure out how to make a fucking deal with him? Like that's what gives me pause. Jackson loves to act and therefore he'll do anything that he gets paid for. "The Man", "Snakes on a Plane", etc. These weren't big budget movies, but they got him in. And you're going to lowball him now? I really don't know what Marvel's deal is but they better fix it and fast. If people start dropping like flies they're really gonna hurt the quality of their movies.
-
Why doesn't all this surprise me?
Can't wait for the ROGER CORMAN ULTIMATE AVENGERS movie. -
Like, where's the sense in offering Rourke 250K, what moron at marvel thinks thats a good idea?
-
For the ranks at Marvel. Not signing on these guys will definitely cut down on some the geeky, fun winks and nods these movies have been extending to their audience. Which will cut down on second, third and fourth viewings at the box office. It seems to me percentage is the way to go if they can't afford it up front. But making an unsuccessful movie is bad for everyone involved. I always thought 250K was a joke. There's just no reason to accept something that low, especially if you are part of the reason the profits come in the first place. Of course, I suppose that's why I like the percentage idea in the first place. I always find it a little odd, when most people will never see that kind of money, to even debate those numbers. On the other hand, a profit WILL be made; and it's just unfair not to pay the people what they've rightfully earned for bringing that profit in. At least if they're making the money on the back end, they've proven themselves of being worth it. (That, of course, is no slight on either actor. They are both great, and well worth their wages.)
-
...of whos in it, besides Downey Jr. All the others are expendable. But getting cheap on a potential quality bad ass dude like Rourke is a bit sad considering that $600M+. Unless of course they totally screw the pooch on it and word of mouth tanks it.
-
Why the fuck can't they at least match that or offer the guy a decent salary like 1.5 million? 1.5 million is reasonable considering the money he will have to shell out to his agent and manager. 250K is a lot of money for most of us, but at the same time, we are not actors. And a man riding a wave of positive comeback publicity on the success of his movie (that could garner him an Oscar) should be given more money than 250K. Also the first Iron Man made a ton of money. And even people like Jason Statham make 750K per movie. What gives.
-
Just saying. I'd imagine everyone clicking on here was expecting an update to this story, not the original story! Come on AICN, why is there not one person in charge of rounding up all the latest news stories, up-to-the minute? This site will go down the pan unless some smart business acumen is shown soon.
-
Rourke and Jackson are great, but they're not worth the multiple millions they're undoubtedly asking. I understand these movies make a lot of money and the actors should be justifiably compensated - but that's what back-end deals are for. If an actor and his reps are so supremely confident that his mere presence in the film will assure an extra $20 million in tickets, then put your money where your mouth is. NO ONE ACTOR IS WORTH 10-20% OF A MOVIE'S ENTIRE BUDGET. Not even king of badass Sam Jackson.
-
Normally I couldn't give a shit about this industry stuff. But I enjoy a good superhero movie and it sounds like this may disrupt our flow of superhero flicks. As long as they sign Downey, it doesn't matter who they get to plug the holes. But, they can't find $250,000 for someone to play the villain? This makes me think Marvel must've made some really bad investments/deals and is a screw-up away from going under. They should be swimming Scrooge McDuck style in what Iron Man made. Did the Hulk bomb or something?
-
Per my last post, thinking about it is even worse when you consider Downer Jr has already said it will be a trilogy and each one will earn $500M it's at least a $1.5B franchise just in theatre takings alone (not including DVDs and Blu-Ray and your mommas dirty old VHS). Unless, as previously mentioned, they totally screw the pooch.
-
Sly is still an overseas god and is worth his money in gold. Eddie Murphy might make shit but his films -not MEET DAVE- still makes MILLIONS. Carrey, Gibson and Willis still bring in the BIG BUCKS especailly Mel who is also a solid filmmaker. These boys deserve 20 million and a cold beer. But this isn't day and age of 20 million. Most of these actors try to take back end or are forced to in this day and age.
-
Marvel comics suck. I'm no fan of the crap they're putting out now or for the last 20 years, really. But whatever I think of the company, they are an independent studio, which means they shouldn't be paying these outrageous actor's fees - spend the money where it's needed, on script, director, and production - there are plenty of fantastic unknown actors out there who will take 250k and give great performances.
-
Rourke isn't important to the film - get a GOOD actor to play the villain that would be happy to just be working & we'll be set. You don't need a big name. Jackson is more important to the Avengers film, so give him what he needs for another cameo.
-
I heard his current asking price is in the 1 to 2 million range. He is humbled by what went down. I don't think he showed up to the Marvel offices on some "IT'S MICKEY BITCH!" and slapped Favreau in the jaw and asked for 15 million. He hasn't shown that his new fame has gotten to him.
-
I Prefer to see Rourke in better movies.
-
If he showed up in a trailer for Mad Max 4 all the hating nerds will be lined up to see it opening weekend and power it to a 35 million dollar weekend gross. Say what you will about his personal life and preferences, his last 2 directorial efforts made money. Passion made enough money that he never has to work again ever. And Apocalypto is an underrated film that made a profit on it's production budget. So the dude is worth it. Now Eddie Murphy? I may not like his movies, but the bitch makes money (Meet Dave excluded). It's amazing to me how many people enjoyed Norbit.
-
I should note I do think IRON MAN 2 will make cash no matter what. Mickey Rourke or no Mickey Rourke. But his recent work with THE WRESTLER won't hurt ticket sales by a longshot. When I was the at theater just a week ago, it was packed solid. In fact, there were a lot of dating couples there. That could mean it'll go a long way to getting the less-than-superhero-inclined significant others to come ALONG with their geeky companions, and give it a chance just based on some name recognition alone. (It sounds stupid, sure. But I know folks who do it.) Also, Samuel L. Jackson IS important. If for no other reason than HE was the reason for a great deal of repeat viewings of the first film. And now people are just flat out expecting him back. It's what they want. If I didn't think I could afford Mickey Rourke, I might back out and go with someone else. Nothing's been established yet. No harm. No foul. But Jackson's a different story. His appearance in the first flick gave the audience a big tease, and now they want more. Not giving it to them may not make IRON MAN 2 a box office loser (that just won't happen.) But they may miss out on a few more dollars they would've gotten otherwise. Ultimately, if they can't afford Rourke, it may not be optimal, but so be it. But they should really work on a back end deal to ensure Jackson's return.
-
Take a look at the X franchise. They were successful but expensive, the solution, kill everyone in part 3 and focus on a Wolverine franchise. Now Wolverine has the stink of death on it and fans have no more X-Men. Big stars sink comic franchises because they don't hang around to let them grow. Daredevil and Ghost Rider sucked, but who is not to say a sequel not inhibited by the origin story or free of loser director MSJ couldn't have worked? Same for Constantine, Keanu who was wrong for the part in the first place bolted and the franchise died. They could have pumped Constantine adventures out like resident evil or Underworld films but with plots. Who cares about Sam Jackson? He brought nothing to Star Wars. The guy is overexposed anyway. Take your time Marvel, figure out your budgets, make your movies and make sure they are good.
-
He'll probably make more money off this one night appearance than if he was in Iron Man 2.
-
Yeah, but that's just one movie. In that case, he might be worth it.. but as a general rule, Hollywood is pretty much done with him. You put him in something big that has to be marketed and they won't back him. You can take that risk with a Mad Max 4 because the public largely doesn't care and there are enough fan boys out there to make that successful. They'd want Mel in that movie, but they'd go see it despite how much Hollywood establishment might try to F it up.
-
Jan 26, 2009 9:31:46 AM CST
Maybe the days of paying offensive amounts are rightly over?
by smashing
We can't without sickening hypocrisy pay people millions of dollars whilst millions of children starve to death planet wide, maybe Marvel is to be commended for saying right these people are in no way really worth millions plus, lets stop paying thatThe bubble had to burst eventually, maybe greedy actors, too used to making millions need to now wake up to the fact that out of all humans they are the most expendable.I like Sam L Jackson, hate Rourke but would happily watch a film with either or neither of them in, if the story is good, paying celebrities obscene amounts of money in a global recession is sick and rightly should be ended.
-
If you're not respecting the talent, why should the audience show respect in return? Jon Favreau had contract problems, Terrence Howard, Sam Jackson, Mickey Rourke... if you keep alienating everybody, you'll eventually have no one left to work with you. Other than Uwe Boll and Jason Statham.
-
A lot of those actors are a risk. Eddie Murphy is a huge risk at 20 million. The only exception is if they're doing a sequel to beloved material (see stallone and Rocky Balboa and Rambo) I don't care what they do overseas.. show me where those actors are critical to a movie's bank that the 20 million is worth it. For that money you can replace them with today's Hollywood 'it' boys or girls that aren't washed up, and you'd still be just as profitable. If you're going to shell out 20 mil, its not because you need a good actor.. you need a good name. So why not pay for the proven name of today as opposed to yesterday's has been. If you can do big in the States, that's better than banking on success overseas.
-
and I wouldn't give a shit, as long as they paid Gwyneth Paltrow enough to dress up like Pepper Potts, pull that dress over her head, and bend over the bed while her vapid anti-American-trash spewing ass got reemed good and hard. That is all.
-
I'll go with the latter. It didn't take long for Marvel to act like a real studio. I can understand some of cost cutting, but what makes this new age of superhero movies so special is that they are hiring high caliber talent, with high caliber writers and directors. It took years to wash Batman and Robin out of the collective thoughts of people. It would be a shame if they returned to that.
No Doubt, IM2 is going to be a monster hit, so Marvel needs to man up and continue what they started, instead of insulting us with these shitty hollywood games. -
Most of the movie going public doesn't even know who he is.
-
I would agree with you if their wasn't any solid mythos connection to Jackson through the Nick Fury character itself. I know what you're saying about X-MEN, and I agree. The problem, however, is unlike Star Wars (where he was just a afterthought to the overall idea constructed purely for the movie), Jackson is actually named by the character of Nick Fury in the comics as the perfect person to play him. And, frankly, he is. At least as far as "The Ultimates" goes, he's designed right off of him. (Granted, I grew up with the other version, who reminded me more of Jack Palance than David Hasselhoff. Brrrr... Anywho...) Budgets matter. No question. But I think Jackson's image is too woven in to the whole "Avengers" thing to just be dismissed as a side note.
-
Sorry I didnt mean to ruffle your skirt there.
Hopefully ur wearing a nice set of thick panties so your Vagina doesnt get too cold.
sack up buddy. -
Believe it or not people still remember the shitty movie with The Hoff. I'm not a fan of Jackson. His best work was when the shark unexpectedly ate him in Deep Blue Sea. Chappelle said it best when he made fun of how he's the same actor in EVERY movie. And a lot of people I know didn't even stay after the credits to see Fury talk to Stark. I say offer the low salary to someone like Eric Dane to play Fury.
-
Come on, Marvel! $250,000, are you serious?
-
Actors are overpriced.
-
richievanderlow, SEEMS YOU DON'T KNOW THAT most of the BIG name stars are paid their BIG MONEY because of the OVERSEAS GROSS. Sure, the U.S. is still the standard to measure success in a way, bit it is the international gross that lets these 'over paid' stars earn their bread and butter. Yes, paying Sly his $$$ for ROCKY and RAMBO seems to be a nice safe way to go but I'm sure Sly is going to be worth his $$$ for THE EXPENDABLES (an original title Sly wrote) when it comes out and hits BIG. Eddie Murphy is a risk when he does movies like MEET DAVE but most of his other crappy films still seem to make 100 million so...and as for getting today's "it" actors instead of an established name...give me a break. A pretty face cannot replace a yeasterday star like CLINT EASTWOOD for example who just brought in 100 million for WB based on his name alone!
-
In many foreign territories just your name alone can power you to a huge gross. AB King is totally correct.
-
Rich, so to you, a star of today like Chris Evans (the upcoming PUSH) would sell a film like GRAN TORINO all the way to 100 million? Get real bro. Clint Eastwood should be paid 20 million and maybe 10% of everything else that film makes. Why? Because he was critical to the box-office of that film. Should hot tv star of today Patrick Dempsey lead Sly's THE EXPENDABLES with a bunch of young it boys as his rag tag team mates? Come on, you need stars that still sell and earn 20 million (backend also). Stallone will bring THE EXPENDABLES to 100 million along with his cast and he would have earned his huge backend deal. Same with Arnie...if Tom "idiot" Arnold is right and Schwarzenegger comes back with a new action comedy from JAMES CAMERON, he will earn every penny running, jumping and falling down again! If said film turns out to be TRUE LIES 2, Arnie should get 20 million plus 20% of the backend. Oh before any BATMAN films, Bale wasn't worth more than 7-8 million...because he wasn't a box-office star. After both BATMAN films and TERMINATOR SALVATION, he should get about 15 million a pic.
-
Guys, this isn't a "breaking news" story. Didn't you read the part half way through that said "what do you guys think?" Probably a good hint that this is more of a discussion-starter than an "oh my God, we just found this out and you need to hear it, like, now" moment.
-
Saying she is overrated or talking shit about her. She gets a 10 million dollar pay-day and is worth that money. Do you know how many women actually went to see Wanted opening weekend because of her? I myself know about 5. Had it been a lesser star like Megan Fox as James McAvoy's co-star, it wouldn't have made the 55 million opening weekend because only the fans of the comic and random fans of action films would have sought it out. Put in Angelina and plaster her face all over the place, and you got yourself a higher gross.
-
Really classy. And such exquisite taste in women.
-
This was on other sites last week.
-
I too had to defend her from some idiots back in the past. Fact is she is worth every dime that her pretty face brings in. She is box-office gold in an action movie and has talent as well. She earns her money and then some.
-
Jan 26, 2009 10:04:31 AM CST
I bet they could get Dolph Lundgren or Hasselhoff for $250k
by stan gable
-
Just because Jolie looked "Hot" in the trailer. True Story. She went to see the movie after work with 3 other girls. They were all pissed she won't be in a sequel. But they love her. She get's a bad rep on the internet from the Team Aniston crowd. But she gets people to see her movies. And I bet the 15 million payday for Erika Salt will pay off for the studio.
-
Let's face a lot of people didnt think this movie was going to be any good. Now marvel has a possible billion dollar franchise on their hands. And over a million dvd 's already sold. First they low ball the director, then they get rid of Terrance,(which i feel is going to be a mistake) they low ball Jackson and now this crap. It's almost like they want this movie to fail. Let's face it Iron Man was the best Marvel film since the first Spider-man. I don't understand Marvel. Some help me out.
-
$250,000? Ridiculous. Merrick, the system is set. I agree some salaries are ridiculous -- but people like Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise do open films. They deserve every penny they get.
-
actors' pay reflects level of interest by the audience, like it or not. (and sometimes i don't.)
most studios know how to measure what an actor brings to the draw of a movie and thus how much they're 'worth'.
that said, $250k sounds WAY lowball compared to some movie roles for name talent. they think they can lowball Rourke b/c of his 'troubled past'. lame. -
The actors playing the kids would change ever film. Oh, as would the actors playing all the teachers.
-
No other words for it. Marvel, you are killing yourself.
-
RDJ is gay and semi-effeminate why? Because his voice wasn't all gravelly? Like a girl because why, his Stark was just too chatty? I disagree with the midget part. He's more of a semi-midget, but a damn good actor.
Why doesn't WB jump on this and sign Mickey Rourke onto the third Nolan Batman as....BANE!!! Nolan can delve deep into Bane's tragic backstory for an hour and a half until he break's Bale's back (AND crushes his voicebox). -
They'd have had to have had different mutants in each episode.
-
We'd be on our 23rd Bond movie - and our twenty-third actor to play Bond.
-
Darth Vader would have been played by five different actors. (Oh - he was!) Well, ummm, Han Solo would have been played by Harrison in Star Wars, John Cazale in Empire Strikes Back, and Christopher Walken in Return of the Jedi.
-
You'd have a different Tony for each season.
-
They'd have had to have killed the cast at the end of each series.
-
...and those that don't stop being stars. Will Smith is in a position where his presence all but guarantees a $200 million domestic gross for any kind of action movie. Paying him $20-$30 million is completely justified. How much do you think Hancock would've made with an unknown?The flip side of this, of course, is the argument that this is a disgusting amount of money considering all the ills of the world and starving children in Africa. But that, for me, seems to be the responsibility of the actor to then give charitably. And they basically all do, albeit not so much that they have to change their lifestyles.
-
How much did was the budget on Soul Men or Resurrecting the Champ? Jackson seems to take any role put in from of him, why not take one that's actually good? (Not that he hasn't been in good movies). Perhaps Marvel Studios should cut their actors into some sort of profit-sharing deal. 5% isn't a huge loss if they offer it to Rourke and Jackson, and considering the popularity of both the genre and the franchise, everyone would most likely still walk away happy.
Fuck money...I'd just be happy to be a part of an Iron Man film or any other superhero film whatsoever. If I got the part of Cypher in an X-Men film for $1,000 I'd fell as though I were on top of the world. (for those of you not familiar with the character he was probably the lamest mutant of all time whose powers were the ability to learn a foreign language at superhuman speed...needless to say, he died in combat). -
You'd have had loads of different actors playing the part - like Keaton, Kilmer, Clooney, Bale...
-
Jan 26, 2009 10:36:47 AM CST
...so if a movie makes 600 million an actor should get squat!
by abking
Saying some actors gets too much can be a double argument. Smith might be paid 20 million, but look at what his films make...600 million for his last two movies...but some cry HE SHOULD NOT GET THAT MUCH MONEY!!! If he didn't bring in the dough he wouldn't be getting paid! end of story. And Marvel should be ashamed for only offering that 250,000 to The Wrestler. That should be the bill to clean his cat!
-
...that Marvel Studios seems to be having might be the result of a Merrill Lynch choke-hold?
-
They finally have got DC comics on the ropes in the movies and now they are killing there golden goose. With all the movies on there plate, Captain Amereica, Thor, and Avengers riding on the success of Iron Man 2 they are killing the cast and possible future of the movies. Have a bad felling that there next movies will as good as Man-thing, please no!!! Put up the money for a great cast, writers, and dircectors or go back to making crap.
-
Easy, then give the actor a percentage. But that's seriously throwing money away for the studio, so they might as well pay up front. It's not like Iron Man 2 isn't going to cover the budget. This is ridiculous. What's going on here?
-
Come on! Hell, your president earns less and he´s got to rule the US (hell, maybe the whole fucking western world). And some guys and galls earn 20 million for a couple of month of work? Come on!
-
Pay them a million or so up front, but make most of their pay come from the profit of the movie. You would eliminate many "paycheck" jobs some actors take and it would motivate them to work harder to make a better product. And as usual, ABKing, you're delusional. No one is worth $20 million...NO ONE, not even your tired, washed-up 80's action heroes. They should be making a quarter of what they make, and more should be given to the creative and production teams. If actors weren't extremely overpaid, maybe we wouldn't have $10 tickets and double that for food, in addition to ridiculous commercials before the movies.
-
The days of paying people 500K to 2 million for a bit part of supporting role is over. Thanks to the credit crunch and bad economy, plus how the studios will emphasize tent pole movies, only established actors are going to be able to demand and receive a big paycheck. Everyone else is going to find their potential pay cut.
It used to be any actor with a name could get 25-50K a day for an independent movie. Hell, Dennis Hopper got 100K for one day of work for a piece of shit called Hoboken Hollow. But not anymore.
The good news if you are doing an independent film you'll be able to afford a descent name actor without wasting your budget. -
And won't become one only because he played HIMSELF in a movie no one is seeing. Critics liked him playing himself? Good. Better he enjoy now because after the Oscar it will be all done. He doesn't have the charism, the bonafide style and isn't humble enough to stay. No one will see Iron Man 2 because of Mickey Rourke. They can put any other actor there and the public will stay the same.
-
Look at Marvels THE PUNISHER. This film should have starred a thinner and more lean Russell Crowe or Christian Bale (cool Punisher voice) or definetly Stallone. Had these stars played Punisher, the film would have had a chance at at least 50 million domestic and 100 million overseas. As it stands, the film made less than 9 million domestic. Marvel should wake the fuck up before they get a rep as bad as Fox. At least Fox has JAMES CAMERON!
-
Who said he was a movie star? No-one. But $250,000? John Hannah got $1 million for The Mummy. And he's less known than Rourke.
-
5'10" Bane v.s 6' Batman? that's even gayer than Downey playing Iron man.
-
Everytime you open your mouth on AICN, shit comes out. Come on pal, stop talking shit for once. Go watch 24 tonight and grow a goddam brain for once!
-
Jan 26, 2009 10:54:23 AM CST
Rourke won't bring in business. Fuck the awards!
by dannyglovers_dickblood
Everyone on this site can jerk off on The Wrestler all they want, the fact is it made about $30 bucks at the theater. Why the hell would Marvel agree to pay him more just because he won some awards? What the fuck does that have to do with bringing business to a comic film? Does anyone seriously think Rourke's name would bring in more viewers for Iron Man 2 that weren't already going to see the film? Shit-can this fucker too.
-
While I know a lot of my friends & acquaintances were really looking forward to Iron Man due to RDJ's involvement, SLJ's turn as Nick Fury, on the heels of the "Hulk" appearance was just icing on the cake. To low-ball a known "fan" quantity such as SLJ is an insult to both him, and to the fandom. As for Roarke, I think he's not a bad actor; I could care less on his involvement w/ IM2 - HOWEVER, to low-ball to that degree, with his current hot-streak, (& iirc he's been doing minor but good work of late since Sin City), that's insulting & foolish of Marvel as well.Marvel will get what they put into IM2... and if they're being this cheap on a sequel of a movie of IM1's size & known bankability, I shudder to think what Thor & Capt America is gonna look like - IF they ever see the light of day.
-
Jan 26, 2009 10:57:48 AM CST
I don't get it. Iron Man did huge business. Hulk did well.
by mr nicholas
Iron Man 2 will certainly make tons. How can they not be willing or able to cough up the dough for Jackson and Rourke?
-
Mickey deserves at least 1 or 2 million. Thats not bad. The man made a huge comeback and is on the map again. He is bringing in some kind of heat for his latest films. He has another film in the top 20. $250,000 is a slap in the face for a comeback like his. Sure, he ain't Tom Cruise, but who said he should get more than 2 million?
-
The suits behind Marvel Studios are in over their heads. They have NO IDEA how to run a major movie studio and it shows. Terrence Howard was the FIRST person signed for Iron Man,and he received more money than either Favrou or Downey...what the fuck is up with that? I could give a shit about Rourke,but after teasing us with Sam Jackson as Nick Fury,they DAMN WELL better cough up the funds to get him onboard at least through the Avengers movie. The audience is not going to buy tickets to a bait and switch(hey kids...did ya like Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man? How 'bout if we replace him with Anthony Michael Hall? They were both in Weird Science and AMH was even in The Dark Knight so its all good!!!)
-
(Funnily enough, that phrase was already saved in my subject listings. The same right-wing dweeb keeps spouting the same bs here.) At any rate, keep your rape fantasies to yourself, jackass. It's not Gwyneth's fault you couldn't get laid in a women's prison.
-
or Wesley Snipes...they would do it for 1/4 mil
-
Rourke is being paid exactly what he deserves. In "The Wrestler" he plays an over the hill, broken down professional wrestler looking for a comeback. He played the role to perfection, because he is a broken down, over the hill actor. Face it, he was playing himself on screen. For many years Rourke was the biggest asshole in Hollywood, and now he is slowly crawling out of the hole that he dug for himself. He is lucky to get the 250K, and unlike Samuel L. Jackson, he knows it. After "The Spirit", Sam should consider himself lucky to be getting any kind of work at all.
-
Jan 26, 2009 11:12:26 AM CST
Mickey and Terrence and Sam are really A-List names that bring i
by six demon bag
-
as do athletes.
-
anyone??
-
Pity that kind of $$ doesn't get given to teachers, police & F&R personnel. Especially athletes, who don't have the "worldwide" appeal that actors supposedly do.
-
If you could not afford to have the first movie be successful, you should've hired lesser actors and have them sign a 3 picture deal before shooting the first film. So now, do you know what the right thing to do is? You cough up the money or YOU WAIT.
-
Just as you finally get it together to start doing your properties justice on the silver screen, you turn into a bunch of cheap bastards. Iron Man 2 with the budget of Spawn...yeah, that'll work!
-
Seriously, is that really gonna stop anyone from seeing IRON MAN 2?? Besides that, the character he's playing likely won't require the gravitas that Mr. Rourke could bring anyways. Get someone like Ron Pearlman or something. He always brings it, AND he's affordable.
-
Personally, I could care less if Mickey signs or not. With or without him doesn't matter. You have the director and leading actor and that is a very good start.As for Jackson I could care less. Nick was onscreen for less than thirty seconds. He can be easily replaced. Unless his role is upgraded to co-star then he needs to quit complaining about the money.
-
The wrestler made like $5 million with only 16 theatre showing it. It finally went semi wide(566 theaters) release last Friday and made 3 more millions..so it's doing really well.
-
The Expendables which would be shooting the same time. Any truth to this? If so, then I would hang out with Stallone than Marvel anytime.
-
Is Holly as crazy beautiful in real life as she looked in 'Home for the Holidays'? She also seems like a very kewl person...don't break my shit up and say she's an asshole in real life...is she? Fell for her way back in 'Raising Arizona' (Turn to the right!) and have had a crush on her ever since.And I agree on Downey, he simply makes Stark on film, and as one of the few Comic books I actually did read as a kid, it is a pleasure to see that character brought to such electric life as Downey portrays him. I hope Favreau does the alcoholism aspects as nobody will be able to bring the tortured persona of the addict on screen like Downey could. He's a brilliant actor period but he's also had a rough time in his personal life and that only adds too and amplifies his abilities and his performance. Particularly when his character is going through similar personal trials.
-
better for the Crimson Dynamo or Titanium Man. Have the Black Widow there also. In the third movie introduce Hawkeye.
-
[laughs uproariously]
-
Jan 26, 2009 11:31:47 AM CST
Jackson is overrated...i like the dood..but often he just too..
by fleshmachine
I DONT REMEMBER ASKING YOU A GOD DAMN THING!! too samuel L jackon..less actor.
-
I'm still not happy about the Howard-Cheadle switcheroo. How hard is it to keep it together? This "economic crisis" is making people wacky. The reason it's getting worse is because the people with the money are cutting back prematurely. The movie biz is the only thing still hanging on. Don't mess that up by becoming cheap when it's not necessary. If it's a problem of money now, can't they just give them some of them "points". And then if by the time the movie comes out, we're all living in caves eating bark, well then, who cares?
-
Mickey Rourke means nothing to the box office of the movie and wasting budgetary dollars to placate his ego is stupid. Spend the money on the effects on screen and the look of the movie. They had a no name guy as the big baddie in the first 1/2 of Iron Man (the bald dude) and it worked perfectly. If Mickey Rourke wants to work and be in a blockbuster movie, he should take the 250K and run since it will build up his visibility worldwide further and lead to more work for him on top of the Wrestler. I'm with Marvel on this one. If it were Daniel Day Lewis playing the baddie, you pay up. Mickey Rourke? No way.
-
"By the power of Asgard!" THOR! "I have the power!"
-
Jan 26, 2009 11:35:09 AM CST
Iron Man worked becasue of good acting and good direction
by fleshmachine
not because of 'cool' actors.
-
They can't come up with a better offer than that? Ridiculous.
-
I'm not a comic book movie fan at all but I really enjoyed it. Much better than "Dark Knight." It reminded me of the glory days of the 70's and 80's when a movie could take itself seriously AND still be witty and fun.
-
I would think that Rourke, who has never claimed to be clean, and with his history is still pretty hard to insure. And even though Downey has been clean for awhile, I can't imagine his insurance rates are that cheap either. Tossing them together might have sent the insurance companies into a tizzy, so while $250k seems low ball (and they could probably kick out some more for sure) you gotta think about how expensive it could be to have him on set at all. One movie where he basically plays himself doesn't mean it's a comeback after all.
-
That is sorta sad you get excited about that.
-
Holy shit dude! I saw that exact scene this morning! (when Downey leans in to take the polaroid..classic!) Good for you dude!!! What about Claire Danes? Get to meet her? Something about those petite brunette/redhead girls makes me crazy (yeah I know she's blonde now, blonde and mistaken I say!). People talk about these attractive older women without even noticing these tiny super-hotties like Holly Hunter (she looked fantastic in '16'). Course my girlfriend bugs out over that Brett Michaels jackass reality tv show shit so go figure...And I must ask....did you meet The Guttenburg? He could totally take fit in with the Bobsaget's and Chuck Norris's of the world...that type of fame is his if he wanted it...
-
He seemed to be signed up pretty quick, but I don't see why he would take something as low as Rourke has been offered.
-
You think Rourke deserves more just because you like him at the moment? How can you not comprehend, people will not go see Iron Man 2 just because he is in it. The audience is pretty much guaranteed already, they don't need to cough up huge cash for some jerk-off that suddenly thinks he's the shit. You want another mill in Rourke's pocket or on the fucking screen? And Cheadle probably took the first offer, why the hell would he think he could do better? Because of that massive success Hotel Rwanda? -
Any more of them? Experiences on other sets, other actors and directors?
-
if they start those "COOL" casts! It is always the same, the guy get an Oscar nomination (for playing himself) and right after gets a role in some "super-hero franchise"! It would be better for Mickey Rourke to stay in those artsy movies critics love to brag about but the movie going public actually never watches. If he gets in Iron Man 2 it will happen two things: 1) People will actually see what a mediocre actor he is. 2) The movie won't get a single viewer more than it would had been any other actor cast. Iron Man was a success because it was fun, had a good story and a perfectly cast Robert Downey Jr. No one remember Spider Man 3? Remember Thomas Haden Church, fresh of his Oscar? What a SHIT work there and the guy burned himself. Badly. Did nothing for the movie, nothing for his career.
-
ChuG Dem fAKin DiCs,FUNkIn Wth Me sTlELgUY !!!!!!!!!
-
sign me up sistah!!!
-
...that I, and many like me, will watch Iron Man. But if Downey's adversary doesn't measure up in the actor stakes the film becomes seriously unbalanced and i won't be interested (see TDK: the script favors both Bale & Ledger equally). You gotta pay for talent and Rouke has proven he's talent. Marvels tight wallets are gonna sink a good franchise here (kudos to Warner Bros. for investing in talent). Of course actors are over paid, but so are studio execs - the whole upper echelon of the industry should be capped by a movie industry 'zsar' -- spread the money between those whole make the damn film, then this problem disappears.
-
There's a news story out now in entertainment news that Paramount asked Harrison Ford to take a smaller salary on his next big movie. I guess all the hedge fund movie money has vanished into thin air; watch CNBC and you'll see reports of hedge funds and other private money investment firms closing up all the time now. I thought Hollywood was supposed to be recession-proof...
-
I'd be happy too if I was on a first name basis with a guy like Janusz Kaminski. He's worked on a few of my favorite movies. Haters are gonna hate brother.
-
Jan 26, 2009 12:07:32 PM CST
This sucks, sure. But theres other factors to consider...
by m_reporter
... Marvel's film division has no money to burn, because they have to get through 2009 without a single theatrical release, and with a bunch of movies in various stages of production.
-
Because the studio is out of money, among other stuff? http://tinyurl.com/cct8m5
-
Just kick the man in the nuts, why don't you? Overpaying Terrence Howard was the worst thing Marvel Studios could have done, because now they don't wanna fuckin' pay ANYBODY!
-
Good on ya Kurt for even spending time in the same room as the lady! You is a lucky dog, sir!
-
...a regular column on AICN; the experiences of a Hollywood stand-in.
Danes is stunningly beautiful, but I'm not surprised about her shyness. I got to know a couple of theatrical actors (two female friends, one of which I still talk to on occasion) doing off-off Broadway shows, during a stint at my old company/job. I remember one of them being very introverted and surprised that she'd have the intestinal fortitude to act and sing. -
I assumed that studios first inquire about the actors asking price with their agents. And at that point they decide to make an offer or not. Why make a lowball offer and have it go public?
-
I'm not sure how much I care about this. I mean I love Rourke. Since I was 12, I've thought he was the coolest cat ever. And meeting him in Austin a few years ago was a dream come true. And I think he never went away. And should have been in big movies all these years. But do I give a fuck what they pay him? 250 grand for less then a years worth of work? Great fulfilling work with smart people? In this economy? I'll take it! And heres the deal with these actor salaries. My pal is a development exec in Hollywood. And we always play this game: Movie Star/Not a Movie Star. I name an actor and he says whether they are. It really is math. Kidman, Paltrow, etc. He'd say no. Since they dont make B.O. money. Ruffalo or Phoenix. He'd call "plus ones". As in, the friend or co-star, not the lead. And some he'd qualify like McCouneghy (sic?), only in like romantic comedies. Or Jackman in XMen movies. Now, I think this is stupid. 3 years ago, he'd scoff at Downey jr. Now, that guy can get 200 mil flick greenlit. And it takes a director with vision like Favereau or Verbinski to say no, this guy IS a movie star. But to Marvel, those guys think, sure Rourke is a good actor. But he ain't making our money back. It's short sighted. Imagine if they said no to Downey jr. But there you go. I, of course have a different view. Movie stars have charisma and talent. And lots of actors should be the next big thing. I also look at it from a more practical standpoint. Which actor can get the movie greenlit. As an independent filmmaker, if I get Ruffalo, his name could get me the money. That and I'd have an awesome lead. But that's the game. Sorry, you make a nice wage to do a job you love then I can't feel sorry for you. If you can squeeze more out of them, DO it. I hope Rourke is in it. But if not, he'll be fine. On a final note, Favs...are you going to have too many villians? Don't Spider Man 3/Batman and Robin this thing. One is always the best way to go. Only Nolan seemed to pull this off. And even then, the Two face 3rd act had troubles! That's it.
-
I'm not trying to argue with you. People are people, he is no better than you....you shouldn't think of yourself so insignificant as to get excited when he called you by your first name. What is he supposed to call you Insignifigant Cocksucker? People give these fucks too much credit and act like they're allowed to teach crewmembers like dogs. Everyone is just working a job, making a living. He's not famous. No one knows who the fuck he is. Academy Award winner or not, D.P.'s are grunts. You just make yourself sound so petty when you get excited over something like that. And you worked on sets for awhile, so its surprising something like being called by your name still gets you hard. I'm not knocking you.
-
Great stuff indeed. I had my own much smaller version of my 15 minutes years back (in music) and I know full and well the whole "fan" "adulation", etc, from both ends and have never been one to go all 'groupie' on famous people I like watching on screen. People do creepy shit and stalk and think of themselves as married to the person their stalking, etc. I don't think any of that shit of course but if I ever had a chance to speak to Holly Hunter, and she gave me more than 2 seconds of her day, I'd be flirting with her big fucking time. Even if her husband (if she's married) is standing right next to me. She hits me once with those big beautiful brown eyes and I'm all a flutter! I would be incapable of not flirting with her. Plus she's great in everything she does acting-wise, totally comfortable being naked, and according to you, as sweet as her on screen persona seems even through the characters she portrays. Luv me some Holly Hunter! Does her current bf/husband know Kung Fu? Cause I DO!!! Muahahaha!
-
Good stories and you have every right to geek out about them.Fuck the haters.
-
Jan 26, 2009 12:49:29 PM CST
Terrence Howard will replace Samuel L. Jackson in Iron Man 2!
by leafar the lost
After losing the role of Jim Rhodes to Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2, Terrence Howard has now been cast as Nick Fury, replacing Samuel L. Jackson. It would be interesting if it really happened. I guess the studios think that the movie fans won't notice if they replace a black actor with another black, and then use the actor they replaced to replace another black actor who wants more than $250K. Hmmmmmm...
-
Of course most people think Rourke deserves it. That's how Hollywood has always worked. An actor becomes the popular actor and anything they act in people see. And if that actor sucks, then people wake up to the fact they aren't that good.
-
I wish I could fuck people in the ass with Lost Souls and still get respect.The guys a genius.
-
to Rourke. Being that Iron Man 2 is pretty much guaranteed to bring in at least $300 million, Marvel should be ashamed. Especially if Rourke has a main role and has a lot of screen time. What a-holes.
-
Jan 26, 2009 1:08:03 PM CST
I don't see whats so complicated about this....
by dannyglovers_dickblood
...sure everyone like Rourke. I do too. And sure this movie will make a bazillion dollars. Will that have anything to do with whether or not Rourke is in it? No. So you don't get the big payola just because the studio is in a giving mood and realizes they will make a ton of money on this if you yourself have little to do with the financial success. The first film proved they don't NEED him. So he should take the 250k and a little back-end and shut the fuck up.
-
I agree. Unless this role is no more than 5 minutes of screen time. However, my main question is why even ask Rourke if they're just going to insult him. I don't get it. Something just doesn't seem right.
-
Although he will expect you to hire homless people to pretend to be his entourage...
-
I compare Rourke to Thomas Haden Church in Spiderman 3. THC would have never been offered the role if he wasn't nominated (and eventually won) for an Academy Award. Basicly in Hollywood, if you get nominated for an Academy Award, your price goes up. Unless this role in Iron Man 2 is a 10 minute role, $250,000 IS a Slap in the Face. By your reasoning, you'd be considered a sucker and a fool in Hollywood.
-
I see your point, but they'll spend more on catering the damn thing than the main villain's salary. Maybe they figure they can get a top talent like Rourke and he'll take the bait because he hasn't seen near this much money in forever.
-
just saying.
-
First, part of what an actor gets paid for is not just his performance, but being available to do the role. If you take a role like Nick Fury you have to be available to do Thor, Ant Man and the Avengers. For $250,000.00, that means passing up on some really good paying deals.
Then look at the actors. Mickey Rourke has busted his ass to give great performances since coming back. I thought he was good before, but not a favorite actor. Now, he puts his heart and soul into his work. Jackson, like Nick Cage, lets his inner geek get in the way of doing his best work. However, unlike he does do good work in the comics realm. Unbreakable was a great performance in a mediocre film. True, his best work is not in comics or sci-fi, but he is capable of it and maybe Favreau can bring that out.
Offer these guys a cut of the a larger cut of the merchandising. Offer them enough cash to not do other things. But this $250,000 deal does sound like a one-shot cheap film with indie budgets and nothing to encourage a good actor.
Getting rid of the writers from the first one seems almost criminal
(like Ice Cream covered in Cheez-Wiz). These guys brought a damned good script and deserve to be on the second. Now if they felt burnt out, that would be different. -
By my reasoning budgets would drop, more films would be made, and more creative control would be given to filmmakers. The era of the star is coming to an end. These wankers need to wake the fuck up. and realize the studios and their parent companies are hurting just like the rest of the country. Thousands of studio employees are being laid off. The film industry is becoming even more of a risky proposition. And these pricks seriously think the rest of the country can take a hit, but they'll continue pulling in the same ridiculous pay? Uh huh.....sure. Fuck off with that bullshit. Sam Jackson think she has negotiating power after The Spirit? Yeah. Funny.
-
Has everybody forgotten......This is the Marvel way. Remember how they treated there artists and properties. Image was created because of that same Marvel metality.....F the artists. Hopefully more DC properties will come along to keep em honest.
-
Doesn't work for actors. Just like it doesn't work for professional athletes. They're gonna get what they've always gotten. Whether you like it or not.
-
I LOVED Gen13.
-
Then you better bet your ass that they will cough up the cash for him, to be in "Iron Man 2."
The oscars don't mean a whole lot when it comes to quality films, but they do give tons of recognition, and alot more work. :) -
Thanks for the advice. Too bad you weren't born in Germany about 60+ years ago - you're just the kind of ballsy guy Hitler depended on.
-
If you have half a brain you know Rourke's already been offered a million Death Race-like films. And a zillion $dollars$ to do them. Marvel can either pony up or Rourke's walking. If Marvel does pony up, then it's up to Rourke whether he wants a major payday and be in a shit action movie or take a reasonable offer from Marvel and be in something that will most likely be half decent and be seen by millions of people around the world.
-
Really? You're the porn star Kurt Lockwood? Or was that a joke?
-
Anyone in here that's bagging on Rourke remember a little film called SIN CITY? Rourke fucking owned every second he was on screen. How can you say he can't act. Rourke kicks ass.
-
Dude look, I can give a fuck what Rourke's been offered. If I had half a brain? You act like I fucking care. Rourke can walk, they can replace him with some juiced up no-namer and I could give a fuck. Actually-- a no-namer would probably be better in a role of this sort. I'm not one of these people who needs a star in a lead role to enjoy. I can give a fuck. Let him take another offer and walk. Thats my point-- if Marvel loses him, no big loss. He doesn't put asses in seats anyway.
-
If it weren't for wonky Hollywood accounting this is how it should work (Has Titanic made a profit yet?) Every actor, director and producer should get a flat rate for making a movie and then a bonus (not a %) based on the gross. They could also get a bonus based on DVD sales, downloads, etc. Is there anyone out there right now worth an upfront 20 million paycheck anymore? Why should someone collect upfront if the movie bombs and their name doesn't bring in the ticket sales?
-
They're 2 for 2 in the movie department and now they decide to get cheap? Haven't they already made back the 500 mil they borrowed to start this film division?
-
That's the new Marvel for ya. God, I miss Stan Lee. This sequel is almost a sure thing to make $300 million in its first week. Now, some of you are correct in saying that it would make that much no matter who stars in it, but to get a "name star" who just created a lot of acting buzz in a career comeback to agree to play a major character, in fact the film's primary villian, and offer him $250,000 is a slap in the face. Marvel might as well have said, "Shut up, you whiny bitch of a moveable piece of set dressing and take your table scraps or you can home to your dogs."
-
Does it get very cold sitting up there in your tower?
Im sure youve never used any sort of slang or epithet in your entire perfect life.
take the stick out of ur ass and realize it was a joke.
jesus. -
Pay for the talent...or the talent won't show (in the work).
-
Studios can lay off thousands, corporate parent companies can take 50% losses for this year, they will greenlight literally half as many films as this time 5 years ago, and the stars will be paid the same. Uh huh. Yeah right. If Harrison Ford isn't untouchable, nobody is. Get your head out of your fucking ass and tell Rourke to do the same. Five years ago he would have been parking my fucking car.
-
I agree. It should be a flat fee based on the length of commitment, 2 weeks, one month, 6 months, 2 years.....a flat fee for the length of shoot no matter who the actor and a percentage of profit. So obviously if you have a hit on your hands the actor makes a ton, but they need to get rid of this 10 million up front horseshit. With the film industry being such a gamble, how the fuck is that justified?
-
My half a brain post was a statement in general and not made directly to you as you don't seem to understand how Hollywood works. Do this thread a favor and hold your breath until a top name actor takes your advice and takes less due to the economy.
-
Jan 26, 2009 2:22:37 PM CST
Frank Langella will win the Best Actor Oscar for Frost/Nixon.
by leafar the lost
I saw it over the weekend, and he gives a "Health Ledger" type of performance. He completely lost himself in the role. Frank was mesmerizing in one scene. Maybe I'm wrong, but he deserves it.
-
Get a decent actor, spend the rest on script and effects. That's what's important. The script for a good movie (which is where Dark Knight rocked) and the effects to tell that story properly. Other then that I could care less who's in the film other then Downey.
-
I agree with you on the he deserves it part. However most of the people that actually vote are Prop 8 sympathizers. Thus Sean Penn probably will win.
-
Has anyone come to this realization yet?
-
they don't like talking bad about this overrated meh movie.
-
I was about to ask the same thing lol I wanna know which pron whore fucks the best and as I am somewhat liberal you can include any tranny actresses you wish to do so.
-
...Or fork out the money for the big names. Nothing de-legitimizes a franchise like recasting the lead actors. They should have learned this lesson with the Punisher sequel.
-
Isn't Downey's Stark the same cocksucker from Less than zero.....with money.
-
Audiences connect with people. Not story and certainly not special effects. People. Audiences will pay to watch a movie with a favorite actor because they feel like they already know the actor and they trust the actor with their 10 dollars and 2 hours. End of story. The cable guy may not have made as much money as Ace Ventura but it would have made shit without Jim Carrey. Ironman without Robert Downey Jr would have been ignored as a Batman ripoff. Indiana Jones with who else but Harrison Ford? If you want to make a boat load of money... you better have a star or you better at least have up and coming stars.
-
Totally agree. Drunk phone call. Amazing.
-
A good film in years. He just took his going wage and used the economy as an excuse.
-
If Rourke gets offered $250k for Iron Man 2, he's an idiot not to jump at it. The Wrestler gave him award cred, but with that beat up face, he's never gonna be a leading man again. This movie is a stepping stone back into the Mainstream. With a potential Acadamy Award and a huge blockbuster under his belt, THEN he's marketable. His name in the credits adds nothing to the BO, so the producers don't need to throw him a bone. They could hire some no-name character actor and do just as well. Downey is the draw. Same for Sam Jackson. After the Spirit, he should do this one for free just to pay back the moviegoing public!
-
Mickey Rourke is LUCKY to be in any films this year. Audiences have never given a flying fuck about whether or not he ever even existed let alone cared that he was in a movie. Hooray for him that he got another second chance to fuck up his career in film. I wish him well. But he's not worth a penny more than $250k for a tent pole film. He wants more cause he knows that he's got 2 or 3 films to cash in on his 15 minutes back in the lime light. Unlike most actors who would take the role for long term exposure.
-
The guy sung his heart out in Momma Mia, after all. Kind of like a big budget busking exercise. He needs the cash. Hire that guy now!
-
I forgot what a great actor he was until I watched that movie. He totally inhabits the role and I completely forgot that he didn't look like Nixon.Amazing performance in an amazing movie.
-
Did you not read my "It's plain and simple" post? That's pretty much fact. Get real.
-
Has this been thrown out there yet?
-
"Audiences connect with people. Not story and certainly not special effects" - I guess a little movie called Star Wars was a kagillion to one shot.
-
The problem with shit like this is,we all bitch and complain and then we wind up paying to see the movie anyway. And the Tom Rothmans of the world laugh and laugh because they know they own your asses. Pissed about Howard being recast? Dont go see the movie!! Pissed at Sam Jackson not being in the film? DONT GO SEE THE MOVIE!!! As I've gotten older,I find its gotten easier to pass on shit that pisses me off. As much as I love Transformers and GI Joe,there is no way in hell I will EVER waste my time or money on those upcoming films. As much as I loved Iron Man,if they cheap out on the sequel and recast all the talent I WILL NOT SEE THE MOVIE!!! The only way to send these studios a message is to effect their bottom lines. Stay home and pirate the shit if you cant control yer inner geek,but dont reward the suits by paying for crap!
-
After watching The Matador, there has to be a juicy role for him in the comic-movie verse
-
what did harrison ford did? im not following
-
It's time for Change. As in the education system in this country. BOYCOTT IRON MAN.
-
Hey Merrick,
I think I can shed at least something of a light on this. (I can't believe I'm thanking the douchebag who sent this to me in an on-line argument over the Actor's Strike, but it seems reliable):
Kenneth West, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT, INC, in his Marvel Entertainment Q3 2008 Earnings Call Transcript:
"Good morning, everyone. Marvel's 3rd quarter results issued this morning included a lot of detail in the press release, so Ill just review the highlights with you now. Net income rose 39% to $50.6 million in Q308, on a 48% increase in net sales, yielding earnings per share of $0.64 versus earnings per share of $0.45 last years Q3."
If this carries any current weight then it at least shows that Marvel's in the black. Everyone knows comics aren't exactly worth their weight in gold, but then again, Marvel doesn't have a long string of films with crazy revenue to back up someone's 15 million dollar paycheck(s).
To me personally, the ends never justify the means when the "means" extend to a star thinking he/she's worth a healthy chunk of the entire budget. Can things be settled on the back-end ala Keanu and the Matrix franchise? -
What did he did?! He had to take a pay cut and take half of what his normal rate is for his next film.
-
Spend, spend, spend. Apparently it's the only way out of this recessionomic downturn. Right now Rourke is sat somewhere saying to his agent: Dude, I know, yeah, awards is great and shit, but SHOW ME THE MONEY! And where are those twelve hookers I ordered??? Bring them to me right now, and their noses better be already powdered, 'cos my stash is my stash, know what I'm saying pencil neck? And another fucking nomination ain't buying me a house in the hills is it? Get me a decent paying gig, or prepare to be smacked in the chops.
Anyway I had a point, what was it again? Oh yeah, I'm actually enjoying this season of 24. Who'd have thought it??? -
And donate his face to science.
-
....finally a studio with some balls to tell actors "FUCK NO." Do you know how much better so many films would have been over the years, had they invested more in other departments and given the star 10 million as opposed to 15.
-
Since Marvel doesn't want to pay for talent, how about paying for enthusiasm? I'm around the right age and a non working actor: $250K, a physical trainer, and .5% of total U.S. international gross and you'll get the DVD/Blu-ray audio commentary work for free!
Whaddaya say, Marvel?
I say "EXCELSIOR"! -
Jan 26, 2009 3:57:51 PM CST
ugh -- but do you have a face that can sand mahogany?
by dannyglovers_dickblood
And the swollen lips of a dead hooker? YOU GOT THE JOB!!
-
http://tinyurl.com/bnqerj
-
What the fuck do you think Downey was doing in Iron Man? I like how some of the people here are justifying screw-overs by big studio fat-cats; notice how the fat-cats never want to take a pay cut. Of course not, why would they ever want to do a thing like that? Do movie actors make ridiculous amounts of money? Yes. But studio heads make an even more ridiculous amount of money. I honestly don't know what someone could do with all of that money; hell, if I was making Will Smith money I'd maybe keep a quarter of it, save some, invest some, etc, and give the rest away to charities and the like. But that's beside the point; the fat-cats are all too willing to impose pay cuts on others, but how often do they tighten their belts?
-
You are using Star Wars as an example of a movie without stars that made huge money? 1. nobody thought Star Wars was going to make huge money. We're not talking about surprise success, we're talking about projecting success. 2. Harrison Ford was a star waiting to happen. 3. Star Wars was everything and the kitchen sink throw into a stew and served in outer space. It was a calculated story from someone who couldn't tell a story to save his life, but knew what every favorite element of every favorite story is and shamelessly used every single one. This is why he's famous for "say it again, and this time say it faster" and for ruining every film he's directed since the first Star Wars. He has one story to tell... and even that isn't his own story. I love Lucas for creating Star Wars and Indiana Jones and for keeping them going, but he didn't, as he thinks and claims, go from being an artist/storyteller and somehow turn into the big heartless exec who just uses art for profit. He always was that person. And he is very good at being that person. And HE uses movie stars. Cause he knows that just because lightning strikes once in a while, doesn't mean you can plan on it. You try to bottle it, in a person, and you try to use it as long as you can. Sound aweful to say it that way.
-
Jan 26, 2009 4:12:57 PM CST
They can use the X3 Youngifying Technology on him....
by dannyglovers_dickblood
....to smooth out his face and make it look human again. Fuck-- if that technology could take 30 years off Sir Ian McDeepThroat, it could work on a hideous beast like Mickey Rourke.
-
I was just playing off your quote, because Star Wars was ALL story and special effects.
-
He'll probably get in the ballpark of $5 million, easy. Besides Hugh Laurie makes more than $250 grand for an episode of House so i don't see this as the final offer. If it is, Mickey needs to fire his agent.
-
What do you people not get about ratings and box office success = more more money come pay day? Hugh Laurie stars in one of the highest rated shows on TV. What the fuck has Rourke ever done other than sand my banister with his cheeks? Seriously. He has no box office clout. Fuck him and his negotiating tactics.
-
and nothing is a cure for boredom like discussing actor salaries.
-
Didn't this site just run a frothing, foaming, fuming article about what a load the Golden Globes are?
-
...until they nominate a film this site jerks off to. Example would be The Oscars -- they were alright when they were handing every award to Return of the King, but this year they haven't been relevant in years. So "Years" goes as far back as about 2003, eh?
-
What is this? Did they get cold feet after IM1 and decide "oh shit, this is too much pressure, we need to go back to making Daredevil, Elektra, and Rise Of The Silver Surfer! Easy come, easy go, we get paid anyway, who gives a shit! Fuck Don Cheadle and Bob Downey, that's too heavy for me man, get me Tyrese and Matthew Fox!" Seriously, WHAT?
-
LET ME GUESS: ZAK PENN? Another script from that fucking genius? Please God no.
-
if their upfront fees are so small - they should cover them with a cut of the gross - assuming these sequels do as good as iron man one, that might not be a bad offer - but still, jackson and rourke deserve much better offers - you know they can and will deliver
-
I've had it up to here with the ubiquitous Sam Jackson. Whatever moderate talent he once had has become watered down by his self-caricature. Enough. Get another actor. I welcome him walking out because of lowballing.
-
It's funny(as in ironic) that the three Marvel Movies you mentioned were released by Fox.Fox don't know a fux about comic based films.
-
That and the economy sucks. Frankly, I'm sure they're all overpaid anyway.
-
Don't take it seriously the first film was meritless money grab exercise.
-
good arguments - but iron man one's success kills your logic - marvel should want at least equal success with part 2 - they should make at least an equal investment - rourke winning awards for his acting is cache/clout - which will create more buzz for IM2 - why would any name-actor want to work for scale in a potential blockbuster - seriously, explain to me why the cast and crew (howard and favreau) of one of the biggest money makers in summer movie history should come back and deliver even more but for less pay? - and now marvel wants to low ball its new cast of great actors that will generate box office $ - im guessing the overall budget is even smaller than the first as well - lame movie mogul bs - bravo marvel
-
in my field my pay is determined by what i can deliver, my success rate and what others in my field charge - same with actors
-
Most readers would probably agree Jim Carrey's Yes Man film is pretty crap and is way inferior to the book it's based on, but he's getting a backend on that, in return for doing it for nothing.
-
Mr. Jackson, you make shit movies. You reap what you sow. You're not a box office draw, you're not worth the money. Would it be "cool"? Yeah. But when you do the paycheck runs for such gems as Soul Men, The Spirit, The Man, XXX 2 (so bad even Vin Diesel wouldn't come back!) and Jumper, to name a few, it's no longer a bad motherfucker wallet you're putting your money in. It's a greedy fucking hack wallet.
Just work your four or five days on Iron Man 2 as Nick Fury, take a bit of a paycut, and become cool again.
Thank you. -
good points - but shouldnt jackson make at the very least what he made doing those crappy movies you mentioned? - not less?
-
i like jim carrey - he is funny - but the guy is lucky he is still making movies at all
-
*sigh* I hate you guise.
-
The economy (and lack of investors) has changed the way film industry works. It is not, NOT, just Marvel Studios doing this people. Like I said earlier, other production companies and studios are doing the same, because they have figured out that the name of most actors isn't as big as draw as the name of the product or the concept. It is the simple law of economics.
Plus, the middle-tier actors don't have as much clout as they once did. As we saw with Howard, for every actor out there is a couple more in the wings (Don Chadle in this case). Only a handful - Clooney, Smith, Pitt, Witherspoon, etc. - can still demand their prices because of their name recognition (or in the case of Downey, because he is so identified with the part now). So stop harping on Marvel for doing what every other studio is doing or about to do. -
They should pony up.
-
There is an old joke that is the ultimate metaphor for negotiating in Hollywood.
A man sees an attractive woman in a fancy bar and goes up to here and says, "Excuse me, but would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"
The woman looks him up and down, sees that he is dress ok and isn't bad looking, thinks about it and says, "Sure."
The man smiles and says, "Ok, how about for $1?"
The woman gets angry and outraged. "What kind of woman do you think I am?" she asks.
The man says, "I already know what type. Now we are just negotiating."
-
In general it works. However with a film like Iron Man it proves despite a slowing economy, people still saw it (multiple times) and then bought the Blu-Ray. And sequels ALWAYS do better than the original. So they have plenty of dough to throw around.
-
If I look and see that the amount of money we get for having Mickey Rourke isn't going offset the cost of having him, or that by getting a lesser known actor isn't going to hurt box office, why get him. As well as if I can get another actor of comparable name value as him for cheaper, why get him?
Its like sports teams. You don't expect or want your team to pay a high salary for a player just because you think he looks cool in the uniform, you get him because you hope he can win you a championship (in this case box office) and if the amount of money he wants isn't equal to what he can deliver on the field, you don't acquire him. -
Your argument is off. In sports you don't get a player just because he looks cool in the uniform. However, in movies you do get hot actresses who can't act (Megan Fox), you do get old guys (Bruce Willis) to play hard asses, and you do get actors who look cool being bad (Rourke) just because. Try again.
-
It is hurting the ability for lower tier actors to demand more money. No longer is there a bunch of independent and b-movie features for them to work on that were willing to give them good money. The only high paying jobs are studio films, and they now have a number of name actors clawing for those parts and willing to work for cheaper. It is supply and demand.
-
You get Megan Fox because she is hot AND people will come see her. You get an athlete because he is good and help the team win SO people will come see you. You wouldn't get a hot girl, no matter how hot, into your movie unless she helped ticket sales (or is sleeping with the producer).
-
good points - but $250,000? - not even half a mil for rourke? - to star as the villain in a movie that will make over one hundred mil? - bull shit - the actors dont have to get the most possible, for whatever reason, but why should they be expected to take a gig like this for substantially less than they deserve - i cant believe im defending actors - i just want the best IM2 money can buy - esp. if im buying $12 tickets to see it and maybe a blu ray
-
That's why I said in general it works. However, Iron Man doesn't fit the "In general" tag. This movie has money to spend.
-
Forgive me....so you're saying Rourke won't improve ticket sales one iota vs. some no-name. Try again...unless this role we're arguing about is a non-major role, then I semi-agree.
-
theres an old saying that goes: if you eat money you wont be able to shit it...and thats why folks i dont eat my money, I instead stick into some hooker's butt hole for fun.
-
she also does it all DP, DPx2, A2M, A2M2A2V2A2M, and she recently was able to miraculously swallow whole balls, digest it and puke it back. what a feet, and what a woman.
-
everyone right now is talking about rourke and they want to see him in other movies - im sure bridges made more than a mil for IM1
-
Why do we even know what he was offered? Can someone tell me the last time they released this type of offer information publicly? And who said that he was the lead villian. That's not official. Maybe he's doing a 5 minute cameo. No one knows. I call shenagians
-
cough up the cash you sluts
-
is ur name a reference to that fruit? because i crave it when i read ur name. can i eat you?
-
u know molesting is a crime
-
Jan 26, 2009 7:00:04 PM CST
Wow Marvel Crashed and Burned Quickly....................
by crackerfarmboy
I had so much hope for them. They cockteased us with The Avengers and now they're pulling this shit!
-
No, what I am saying is Mickey Rourke won't increase ticket sales equal to the amount that some say he deserves.
Let say Mickey Rourke asked for a million dollars, and Iron Man made 100 million dollars, but if they got a lesser-paid actor (lets say Michael Madsen) for $250,000, and the movie made 99.5 million. The film with Madsen made a 1/4 million more when cost of actors is figured in.
My point is, no matter how good or likeable or even talented of actor Mickey Rourke is, with a film like Iron Man his contribution to the box office will be minimal (unless he pulls off a great performance, alá Alfred Molino in Spider-Man or Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, and that can be considered into the his asking price, but studios weigh those odds). The other problem is that with the current economic problems in the film industry, a number of other talented actors are available for dirt cheap, driving the price down for the non-mega star actors.
As for Iron Man going to be a hit and that they have the money and such - that is all inconsequential. Marvel might be making the movie, but it isn’t their money. It is the investor’s money and they don’t want to see you throwing it around as if you don’t care (otherwise they might not be as likely to re-invest with you again). And if you are going to run a production company, you are going to try to spend the investor’s money as wisely as possible and get as much bang for you buck (minus the usual amount of Hollywood waste) and try to get as good as return as possible. So that means if you can find an actor who is cheaper than Mickey Rourke, or get away by paying Mickey Rourke less because you can, you will. It happens all the time.
I am sure when they are making independent films they wish they could go out and get so-and-so but they can’t afford him or can’t justify his price. When they made Brokeback Mountain, they might have wanted Gene Hackman instead of Randy Quad, but Ang Lee and the producers realized that it wouldn’t be wise to spend William Pohlad’s money that way, especially considering the fact that the potential profit for the movie might not offset the cost of getting Hackman. So they played conservatively and went out and got an actor who was right for the part, fit the cost they were willing to spend and played it safe.
-
Uh...no.
-
because priests like to hang out here
-
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/topstories/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-11/1233018267177670.xml&storylist=
-
u must be poor. only really poor people have dollar signs in their nick name.
-
I think maybe they're confusing this with the mediocre Hulk outing. I mean jeez, they come out with a almost 600 million dollar film, and the only thing we hear is about them trying to lowball everyone for the sequel, Favreau, Howard, Jackson, now Rourke. I have this sneakins suspicion that if someone looked into the books over at Marvel you'd see one of those financial mismanagement messes where the money is sneakily finding its way up into a few pockets at the top.
-
I think maybe they're confusing this with the mediocre Hulk outing. I mean jeez, they come out with a almost 600 million dollar film, and the only thing we hear is about them trying to lowball everyone for the sequel, Favreau, Howard, Jackson, now Rourke. I have this sneakins suspicion that if someone looked into the books over at Marvel you'd see one of those financial mismanagement messes where the money is sneakily finding its way up into a few pockets at the top.
-
Mandarin, Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man, Unicorn, Blizzard, Whiplash/Blacklash, Melter, Justin Hammer, Iron Monger, Ultimo, Mister Doll, Madame Masque, Black Widow, Spy-Master, Scarecrow, the Ghost, Living Laser...
What do I win? -
I think maybe they're confusing this with the mediocre Hulk outing. I mean jeez, they come out with a almost 600 million dollar film, and the only thing we hear is about them trying to lowball everyone for the sequel, Favreau, Howard, Jackson, now Rourke. I have this sneakins suspicion that if someone looked into the books over at Marvel you'd see one of those financial mismanagement messes where the money is sneakily finding its way up into a few pockets at the top.
-
Rourke's good, he's getting well-deserved praise for "the Wrestler" and I wish him well. However, one film does not a comeback make and the guy has a troubled past to live down. This "comeback" could last about as long as the one Burt Reynolds had post "Boogie Nights." On the other hand, Marvel made a point to get Jackson for the role of "Fury," they knew the plan was to make him a recurring character in the "Avengers" series, and they even modeled "Ultimate Fury" on Jackson. Given a plan like that they were stupid not to lock him in for the entire series.
-
i hope that teaches u a lesson. never double post again retard. or else i steel ur filthy post and mak it mine. it aint copy written so legally i can. fuck YOU (THX certified)
-
yeah i dont think they're gonna be in the films though..other than mandarin and black widow
-
He's da bomb !
-
unclench those butt-cheeks marvel.. in this case quantity counts for quality
-
Jan 26, 2009 9:00:32 PM CST
Marvel fucked over their comic creators for years, it continues
by tallboy66
IM2 has been bad press one after another after another. Yes, 200 grand is nothing to sneeze at for us normal people, I totally agree. But when talking movie money, you just have to think about their crazy movie money sums. And, yeah, Marvel's cheapness with it's comic creators for years is extending to it's movie production unit. Good on them. Who the hell started this cheapness anyway?
-
they want to end up being screwed and they know how to do it.
-
from Forbes: "But Marvel also said it expects modest performance in 2009 partly due to Iron Man revenues shifting to the current year and no 2009 summer feature films slated for release". and "Forward-looking sales may also suffer from less-than-expected Spider Man-related revenue and the slowing economy's effect on the retailers who sell its character-driven merchandise, Marvel said". In other words trying to shore up 2009 for the windfall in 2010.
-
Dr. Daniel Jackson will be in Stargate Universe!
-
http://tinyurl.com/dadw9b
-
"Franchise." One of the most annoying things about the internet is it made ordinary movie-goers start talking like studio execs and media moguls.
-
I've had some dealings with the company and know firsthand how unprofessional they are when it comes to making offers. Those cocky fucks are sitting on Mount Olympus right now but if they keep this up, we'll be watching some shitty sequels.
-
Jan 26, 2009 9:29:39 PM CST
Frank Langella will win the Best Actor Oscar, Rourke and...
by leafar the lost
...Sean Penn will not win due to a few "wrinkles". First, Langella just plan kicked ass as Nixon in Frost/Nixon, and the drunk phone call scene will be the reason why he wins. You have to see it understand. He literally became Nixon both physically and emotionally. Second, Langella is an old guy; he is 71. This is it for him. I don't see him getting another role like this. I am surprised Langella didn't die like Heath did. The Academy is aware of that. Penn all ready won the Best Actor Oscar for Mystic River. Rourke is still young enough to get other shots at an Oscar. Well, maybe not in Rourke's case, but Penn still has many more productive years left in him. Give the damn thing to Langella! He actually deserves it.
-
A $250,000 expense isn't worth it if it doesn't raise income by more than that amount. Substantially more, actually, because points are siphoned off throughout the process. Paying a $250,000 premium for a salary is probably a waste unless that actor will raise the movie gross by close to a million dollars.
Roarke is cool, of course, but what about that really REALLY cool unknown actor that hasn't had any success yet, and only costs $100k? Wouldn't that be the one to bet on? -
Why are you fucking with your fanbase? Before Marvel started to fuck up Iron Man 2 was going to make atleast 800 million-plus! Now that they've dissed Terrance Howard, SLJ, and Mickey Rourke It's safe to say that Iron Man 2 has fail written all over it. Yeah, it will have a great opening weekend, but after that, this movie will fall faster then Enron stock. The suits at Warner Brothers must be hi-fiving each other right about now. It's apparent that Marvel is self-destructing.
-
..if it would stop the practice of flooding the comic shop shelves with utter bullshit in an attempt to crowd out all other companies, which they continue to do. That ridiculously odious practice still seems to be their business model, they come up with a big storyline like, say Civil War, they cross it into every single monthly title while also spawning dozens of also-ran lesser 4 issue cash-in/tie-in's done by mediocre talent. Same old Marvel, same old bullshit. They got damn lucky with Iron Man and the Hulk, now watch them greedily fuck it all up. ASSHOLES!!
-
With Rick Moranis and Kurtwood Smith. You'd be surprised, guys.
-
two decades worth of Drama. The studios remember well just how much this guy cost them...and could very well cost them again now that his star is on the rise again, and more importantly now that he has access once again to everything that ruined him before. Great actor...but he has alot to prove as far as being a reliable employee, before he can start dictating terms.
-
is that it's short. Mickey Rourke was at best a "B" actor during his heyday in the 80's. Now why would we be putting him up into "A" list status? Because of Sin City and the Wrestler? Sure, he's good in both, but has either of those films made any money? Ummm...not really. Checking Box Office for Sin City, I see that it topped off in the neighborhood of 74 million. Good, but that money can be attributed to many other factors besides Rourke.
The Wrestler, even with all the deserved accolades is currently at 9.6 million after a six week [platformed] release and two golden globe wins. Even if he wins the Oscar, it's not going much higher. He adds nothing to the projected box office of Iron Man 2.
Also, don't forget that Favreau and Downey will be getting bigger paychecks this time around (for good reason)and the cast is expanding. Obadiah is the only character they lost, and from inside reports, they're adding at least 3 major players into the fold. More characters = more salaries = less money to go around.
I'm sure the deal included back end participation, so if/when Iron Man 2 makes 300 million dollars, he'll be getting paid. He's right to hold out for more (if he wins the Oscar, Marvel will go back to the table), but he's stupid to pass. The opportunites are going to dry up quick for ol' Mick. -
I'm not sure whether it would be better for Marvel to just pay everybody percentages for their involvement and limit their risk. Of course they limit their potential profit, but at least they have a team that's motivated to produce. It has always seemed like it would make a lot of sense to pay everybody this way to share risk and reward. Then again, I do not make films for a living, nor am I a greedy fuck.
-
It's hard to be mad about that.
-
Lol at all you assholes that kissed Marvels ass last year.
-
...not that there's anything wrong with that. To be fair, Marvel's bullshit meter is strong, and its denial is weak.
-
Jan 27, 2009 4:07:34 AM CST
No Jackson as Fury...Yes! No Howard as Rhodey..Bullshit!!!
by monkey_king
Ever since dicking over Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle has this sequel sounded like a train wreck. I can live with no Jackson as Fury(who was horribly miscast and nods to THE ULTIMATES line suck donkey balls), but if Rourke has a small role..I understand, but if his role is larger I call "foul" on the turds at MARVEL.
-
Even if Langella were the best performance, when does the Academy ever give the award to the BEST performace, the best movie, the best director, etc? Sometimes, sure. But it's a popularity contest. Rourke's star is fading again. Pitt...no. Jenkins...who?Who will win? Sean Penn. 1. He is popular. 2. He played gay. Not just half-gay, he went FULL-GAY. 3. Hollywood loves gays, because Hollywood is full of gays. Some other Oscar pool notes: Hollywood is also full of Jews. If there is a holocaust documentary check that off on your Oscar pool too. Your movie has to suck pretty bad if it's about the Holocaust and it's not nominated (i.e. Defiance.) Also, if pretty actresses go without makeup, they will win too, because Hollywood is full of ugly bitches who appreciate an actress slumming it to look like a regular person. Finally, it is a requirement that whoever wins the award for best costume will have the absolute worst most gawddamnawful dress on...oh, and one of the short film award winners will ramble on too long and the microphone will cut off just as his partner steps up to try to quickly get in a 'thank you'. p.s. I'm drunk now.
-
Your drunken talkback has me confused. You wrote that Hollywood was full of Gays, but later you wrote that it was full of Jews. Which is it? Using the word "full" implies 100%, so it can't be both. Personally, I thought it was full of lipstick lesbians. BTW, Langella IS going to win the Best Actor Oscar, so sober up.
-
Your logic makes no sense. You say the success of the first film proves me wrong? How? I agree Downey and Fatreau should have a hell of a lot of negotiating power coming off the success of the first. Rourke had nothing do to with the first film nor does he pack any box office punch. The amount of tickets purchased will not increase because he is in this film. Marvel knows this. It would be nice to have him-- sure. But why make him a better offer? They're not in the game to be charitable to washed up/ comeback kids.
-
There is a good chance Rourke will once again get fucked up and pile cracked out whores on top of his face five high.
-
Just Ironic how we can be in this economy where thousands of jobs are being lost everyday and they still want an Obscene amount of money to perform to charge Obscene ticket prices!
-
We all know how important casting an actor for a villain role is. Hello, Heath Ledger anyone? Do anyone of you REALLY want to say that The Dark Knight would've made just as much money had Heath Ledger not had turned in the performance that he did? I'm not even talking about his death, well before he died people were buzzing about his performance like crazy. A good actor in a good villain role will bring in some extra dough. $250,000 is something Marvel pisses away considering how much money we're talking about with this kind of movie (considering the budget on the first Iron Man was well over $100 million).
Look at it this way, if they were to hand him even just $1 million, that would still be less than 1% of the production budget, not to mention the overall gross. You're telling me that it's a smart idea to pay your MAIN villain actor who is a golden-globe winner and best actor Oscar nominee less than 1% of the production budget? -
Jan 27, 2009 10:25:38 AM CST
get will yune lee to play tony's MANDARIN chinese double
by ironic_name
rich smug party boy, but he keeps making money off of war and is untouchable, as he is supplying the us [and their enemies] weapons after the vacuum tony left pulling out [hehe] of the arms race. going after him means you are fighting the american military AND the vaguely arab soldiers [aka tearists, as they have been called the last 7 years] as well.
-
no intelligent life and high levels of silicon.
-
Jan 27, 2009 10:35:12 AM CST
maybe smarter than tony mandarine could even cure cancer
by ironic_name
sure he hasn't released the cure because he wants to sell it, but is tony gonna kill the man who has exclusive rights to a cure? or the man keeping america from speaking arabic? [as the surprisingly pro us military iron man would probably word it.]
-
Jan 27, 2009 10:37:49 AM CST
howard the duck is willing to be J hammer for sandwich money
by ironic_name
-
tony would have to be really drunk to lose a debate to a small orange.
-
Yes Hollywood has a lot of gays who work in the industry, and yes it has a lot of jewish people, but I always love it when people make it out that is the only people in Hollywood. They have powerful voting blocks, but they are not all powerful and controlling.
But I will admit, while Executor was crude, his logic was sound. Yes, Hollywood loves it when a straight man plays gay, but you know what they love more? A comeback story, because 90% of the Academy voters are washed up, has beens so they can relate. Pencil in Mickey Rourke. -
Sure villains are important, but movies can get by without a powerful, memorable villain. Jeff Bridges did a serviceable job in the first Iron Man movie, but its not like his image is on T-shirts or people are dressing up like him for Halloween.
Besides, Mickey Rourke is most likely playing the Titanium Man or Crimson Dynamo, which will be like Iron Man, a CG character. So besides maybe a couple of scenes where he is live action, the rest of the movie is basically a VO job,
Maybe that is one of the reasons Marvel said we are only to pay you $250,000? -
Saying "Damn right Marvel will pay up for an Academy Award winner." Who gives a fuck?! Oscars do not translate to added Box Office revenue. They have Downey, whom everyone loved from the first-- so everything else doesn't really fucking matter. I agree- a strong villain is necessary. And I'm pretty damn sure there is some lesser known buff ass dude with a fucked up face that will take the role for SAG minimum plus back-end points.
-
Marvel and DC have been famous for lowballing their talent since the 1930's. Seems like it's a genetic disease for the comic book publishing industry, back to Timely and Greenberg/Lieber and all the way to the famous creator rights court battles by Steven Gerber and so many others. They've played hardball, and it seems someone in the front office thinks he can pull the same stunts on Rourke and Jackson that they can pull on Jack Kirby. Such is life; they're snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Yeah, bring on more Man-Thing films.
-
How many roles are forthcoming for an awesome actor whose face looks like 2 miles of gravel road. Roles that he's already done in the past several years, amazingly I might add, are his bread and butter. Fuck the Oscar rubbish.
-
Jan 27, 2009 12:44:18 PM CST
Just offer Terrence Howard 75 grand to play Nick Fury
by stuntcock mike
He'd jump at it.
-
Jan 27, 2009 12:58:50 PM CST
The only actor worth the coin is JASON FUCKING STATHAM
by dannyglovers_dickblood
Pay him 85 million to commit to new Crank and Transporter films every year for the next 10 years.
-
Got bills to pay Marvel.
-
The Statham 85 mil contract is a better investment than shares in gold.
-
Jan 27, 2009 1:53:42 PM CST
what if Marvel was watching this TB closely....
by dannyglovers_dickblood
....in regards to Mickey's offer. Poor bastard. He's fucked. Take the 250k and buy a nice little spread in Cabo, man.
-
An investment in the future.
-
Jan 27, 2009 2:01:55 PM CST
Hiring Statham is what Obama was talking about...
by dannyglovers_dickblood
......when he said "We need to invest in the future of America."
-
Actors are grossly overpaid but because hollywood loves pissing money away nothing will change. I think more should be paid to directors and crew for putting up with some of those primadonna bitches.
-
Actors or athletes?
-
Just because we here at AICN are obsessed with seeing men dressed up as comic book characters, doesn't mean Marvel or any studio has to pay more then what is the going asking price for a part. Yeah, they should have locked in Samuel L. Jackson for more roles, but they didn't and that still doesn't mean we wouldn't be talking about them not hiring him when they tried to renegotiate. The fact is that the going rate for non-A list actors has dropped. They no longer can get away with demanding their regular prices and must ask for less.
A couple of things you guys should consider before you guys keep trashing Marvel just because they are preventing your Ultimate fanboy fantasy of a Iron Man 2 and Avengers movie:
1) Marvel is a publicly shared company, so they have to produce profits for their shareholders. Bitch all you want about them being cheap, but I am sure the shareholders would not be happy if they got less of a predicted return for a couple of quarters just so the Marvel could throw a couple of million more at SLJ for Iron Man. These people are businessmen, not comic book fans, and don’t care about your dream cast list. The just want maximum return on an investment. It is hard for the Board to argue art and fan appreciation with the shareholders.
2) The money for the movies isn’t even all Marvels, it is from outside investors. So you try to figure out the best possible return for the investors. And that means you don’t go giving points away if you don’t have to because that decreased the amount of profit they can get.
3) The going rates for actors have been pretty much figured out by Hollywood where it is almost a science. Just go to imdbPro and see they have figured out how bankable an actor is, and how much business he generates. And the actors and their agents know this; it an actor feels he isn’t being offered enough he will turn it down but a comparably as big as name as him will probably take the role in his place.
4) Why should Marvel pay more than the going rate of an actor when another studio doesn’t? Would we be having this discussion about not paying Micky Rourke if he was being cast in a Speilberg or Michael Mann films, or even Transformers 2? Arguable all of those films would be blockbusters and big event movies, but would you people care if Mickey Rourke only got $250,000 for those roles.
This doesn’t mean you can’t complain about Marvel’s lack of foresight in casting actors in advance or bad casting decisions, but to somehow make it seem like Marvel is some ultra-low budget, cheapskate just because they won’t spend unlimited amounts of money to make you guys happy is just absurd.
-
just sayin.
-
Of course a big investment in a bankable star is worthwhile if the returns are big. Unfortunately, a big return is never something that can be predicted with any certainty, so it's always a gamble. If Iron Man 2 stands to rake in something even CLOSE to what the first one did, then 15 million for RDJ is a no brainer. I believe absolutely that the principal artists involved in making a blockbuster movie that makes hundreds of millions deserve at least tens of millions for their hard work and dedication. And by that I mean that most directors and writers are criminally undercompensated. Marvel should have offered Rourke a cool mil as a starter. I'll bet a cool mil that Marvel is just waitin to see if Rourke wins the Oscar to up the offer.
-
After fucking over the likes of Kirby,Gerber and to some degree Len Wein who created Wolverine,I would say it's just deserts.I'm not surprised that they wouldn't give Howard or Jackson a good deal to star in IM2.Don Chedale a good actor that he is, is not appropiate for Rhodes. Get Micheal Jai White, I doubt he's too busy to accept the part.
-
...Rourke is already back to destroying his career with that upcoming "Wrestlemania" stunt. Marvel would be stupid to make him a sizeable offer.
-
Jan 27, 2009 7:52:13 PM CST
Rourke took the Wrestlemania gig after he was lowballed...
by leafar the lost
...by Marvel. If they paid him what a Best Actor nominee should be getting paid (at least $1,000,000 a movie) then Rourke may not have agreed to "act" in Wrestlemania 25. Lets not forget what pro wrestlers really do. They are actors playing the parts of characters on a stage that is shaped like a boxing ring. Basically, Rourke has accepted a part in a really physical play. I do not look down on pro wrestlers like some of the assholes on AICN do. They all want to end up like Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson, but 99% of them never will. If you don't respect what Rourke is doing, then say it to his broken face. I hope he slaps the taste out of your fucking mouth!
-
...as a sign of respect to pro-Wrestlers. His entire movie is about the hard, dark side of pro-wrestling. I am sure he has found a little bit of respect for what they do.
At least that is how I see the situation.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts