Marvel Apparently Doing Iron Man 2 on the Cheap
From Variety comes this report that Mickey Rourke is being offered a measly $250,000 to play a major villain in the upcoming Iron Man 2, a low-ball figure that may cause him to make The Expendables instead. I've previously written about Marvel's apparent attempts at penny-pinching the May 2010 sequel before, but this new information is startling. Marvel is allegedly as badly hurt by the economy as any company (unlike DC Comics' relationship with Time Warner, Marvel Comics has no giant conglomerate to fall back on) and they are trying to find ways to save.
The latest casualty was Samuel L. Jackson, who will now NOT be playing fan-favorite Nick Fury in this sequel (or apparently in The Avengers, if that even gets made), allegedly due to a very low-ball offer for a genuine supporting role (as opposed to the applause-inducing cameo at the end of the first film). Folks, on opening weekend, geeks and non-geeks alike were talking about two and only two things: Robert Downey Jr's performance and making sure their friends knew to stay for the end credits for the Sam Jackson cameo. Hey, I guess Marvel can always go with someone who has experience playing Nick Fury, Mr. David Hasselhoff.
Also in negotiations to apparently work for peanuts are Sam Rockwell as a second villain and Emily Blunt as Black Widow. Blunt as Black Widow serves two functions, since she could theoretically take much of Fury's expository dialogue and allow the producers to potentially dial down Gynneth Paltrow's role, thus allowing them to go cheap on her too. Toss that in with Don Cheadle replacing Terrance Howard (boy, am I starting to wonder if his exit wasn't about money after all) and you certainly have an eclectic and interesting cast for this superhero sequel. None of these fine actors are so underemployed that they have to take whatever they can get for a sure to be huge moneymaking tent pole picture. We'll see who bites and for how much money.
I can understand that Marvel wants to cut corners when it can, but is playing hardball with the sequel to your most valuable property really the way to go? Iron Man single-handedly made Marvel into a real movie studio and briefly created the impression that they were movie making geniuses. Whatever issues I had with Marvel's choices in the past, they spent A-grade money on a B-level comic book character and let Jon Favreau make the film he wanted to make. They took a risk and it paid off big time for them. And they've been making some whip-smart choices about who directs their various properties, so I was hoping to be able to cheer for them for awhile. But this is not smart decision making. Yes, they may be saving up so that they can blow their wad in other, more technical arenas, but Iron Man was a success because of its characters and fine actors, not because of its occasional flying robot action scenes.
If you want to cut costs, don't do it on your flagship franchise, the one that is all but guaranteed to return said investment. There is a strong possibility that Iron Man 2 could very well be the highest grossing film of summer 2010, with only Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (part 1) standing in its way. If spending an extra $20 million gets a top-flight cast and makes sure that the current cast is happy, then spend $20 million. Hey, Marvel... want to save almost $200 million in production and marketing costs? Don't make Ant Man.
On the plus side, the current spendthrift ways make it more likely that Marvel will cast Jon Hamm as Captain America in Joe Johnston's film adaptation (since he'll likely work for peanuts). Of course, if Marvel is set on going cheap, then there is always the frightening possibility that the 1990 Albert Pyun Captain America film may end up being the superior version.
I come at this not as a foe but as a friend. I didn't worship Iron Man like a lot of people did, but there were ingredients there for a vastly superior sequel. With a stunningly successful original behind them, and most of the introductory exposition out of the way, the filmmakers can make a film that has the confidence to deal with the various geopolitical issues that were brought up rather than toss them away for a rock-em-sock-em robots climax. I understand the need to save money for any major company. But if you're Marvel Studios, Iron Man 2 is not the film to cut corners on (and for that matter, neither is Captain America).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
READ YOUR FIRST SENTANCE...Mickey Rourke is being offered a measly $250,000 to play a major villain in the upcoming Iron Man 2!!! I know how Hollywood works, but in this economy, you think many people are playing violins that Mikckey may only get quarter of a million to be in a movie? Grow up Hollywood...AND, As long as the money looks like it's on the screen why are you so concerned about MOVIE STAR SALARIES??? They need to come down. If S. L Jackson thinks he should be paid 15 million, let him walk. What was Terrance Howard asking (if it was really money that killed the deal? Four million?)...If the story is good and it does not look like they skimped on the special effects it will be great. It also looks like they will have a great cast anyway...Its why Hollywood is screwed up...
I wholly despise that IRON MAN movie. Iron Man was my #2 favorite superhero in the 1970's and 1980's (including Rhodey's complete run as Iron Man) and this interpretation was horse dung. I also used to collect Sgt. Fury and His Howling Commandos so I was less than amused that Marvel went for a Black (Ultimate Universe Style) Nick Fury. That they went for an OLD Obadiah Stane as the main villain when his comic-book version was a YOUNG man seeking to supplant Stark as the World's pre-eminent Weapons manufacturer was also a horribly bad move. And, hey, what's Obadiah Stane without an Indries Moomji to do his vamp work for him? Rotten attempt at a movie. Any 11-year-old from my era could have done better.
Here is another view....other than Downey, recast everyone. Everyone. Find lesser known, or unknowns with talent and dedication and go that way...and give them a cut of the profit.
George Lucas did this, and it worked well for Star Wars.
Some peoples already forgot what Peter Jackson did with LOTR. You want to make more than one movie with the same cast on the cheap sign them all up and shout everything in one long production run before you even release the first movie. That way your stars don't get to make demand based on the success of the first movie. You might run the risk of loosing money if the movies are a failure but that a risk that you take every time anyway. And you mitigate that risk by having a great script and a great director to deliver it!
It's the "Attack of the Armchair Producers!"
I don't understand why Marvel doesn't spice up the 'low-ball' paychecks with profit share agreements. The first Iron Man made heaps of money, the sequel has potential to make heaps more. I'd take a guaranteed $250,000 and 1% of the gross! (The first one grossed 318 billion!! that's 3.18 million for one movie.)
Even if we assume the sequel will only do half as good as the original, that's 1.6 million per principal actor... (Downey, Howard, Paltrow, Jackson, Rourke, Rockwell, Blunt, and the director Faverau) And you've still got 92% of the gross to go into production costs, special effects, and profit.
Marvel, don't screw up the finest superhero movie ever made with a cheap, shoddy sequel. You will never recover your fanbase.
I think this article inadvertently highlights what's wrong with American movies. Its all about big name stars and expensive special effects. Not so much about plot, characters, or dialogue. I thought Iron Man was highly over rated, Having not learned my lesson I rented the latest Hulk movie and was amazed at how interchangeable the two movies were. The plots are essentially identical: Good scientist uses mcguffin technoogy to turn into superhero bad men want the mcguffin technology and use it to make a bigger badder evil superhero who the good superhero still manages to vanquish.
Why do American films have to be so expensive to make in order to be considered worth watching?
Overseas, really good movies are routinely made for much less than what they make them for here.
Why does everyone involved in the movie have to have a multi-million dollar paycheck?
Couldn't more actors get paid on the percentage principle? You know, if the movie makes a lot of money, then the actors get paid millions. If it doesn't do so well, then they only get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If Edgar Wright wasn't attached to Ant man, I would second your proposal. But EW is amazzzzzzing.
Edgar Wright is no longer attached to ant man, as he is doing Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World instead. I think Ant Man is stalled as a movie.
The thing to remember - with very few exceptions - is that Hollywood always shoots itself in the ass. The exceptions (ahem, "The Dark Knight" and "Spiderman") become blockbusters. Every other time, it's the crapper. "Howard The Duck" was the result of decisions no more stupid than the ones being contemplated here.
Cheap, dumb, George Bush clones. The perfect description for a Hollywood studio head.
There's a joke in Hollywood that ends with, "Yes, but I as the producer, must first piss in it."
Sounds like that rule applies here.
I loved "Iron Man" and have eagerly anticipated a follow-up since the teaser after the credits. Now, I'm not so sure. It would be better to have one really great film than ruin the franchise with a poor sequel.
Ugh. Samuel L. Jackson and Terrence Howard were additional firepower, and now it sounds pretty weak. No way can Don Cheadle create the kind of fraternal camaraderie that Howard and Downey had. I'm so disappointed.
OK, I love watching Mr. Jackson and am disappointed that he may not be in IM2, but was I the only Marvel geek who had a bit of an "issue" with a black guy playing a former WW2 commando? African-Americans didn't get to do that stuff in WW2. But then there was Gabe ... ah never mind.
The nick fury being portrayed in iron man is the "ultimate" version of nick fury, who is not only black, but SPECIFICALLY modeled on sam jackson (he gave his permission for marvel to use his likeness).
OK, LM, you're right: bad comment and I apologize. Psybab, that's cool, I didn't know that. Thanks for the lesson, folks. I still love watching Mr. Jackson act so I hope he stays with IM2.
.........yeah, you were the only one. Or at least, one of the only ones. And I think this "issue" you talk of is normally referred to by another name beginning with "R", but what do I know.
Anywho, as Scott said, Sam Jackson's cameo was the other big reason that people went to see Iron Man, other than Iron Man, and seeing as his character is based on a revised (and more popular than the original) version of Nick Fury from the Ultimates, there was nothing odd about having him basically play his "own" role.
But you're right, black people didn't get to do that stuff in WW2, - forget all that Tuskagee Airmen nonsense you read about in history books, or the Buffalo soldiers and the like (hint; they were black too) - none of that would ever EVER happen in real life. Black people in the army? What's up with that? In fact, let's even forget, for a moment, that Super soldier serums didn't actually even exist at all neither and yet here is a whole movie about a "superhero" and character based on that concept .
No, let's instead choose to focus on the fact that there's a black guy playing a role that you think should have been played by a white guy - because as we all know people had "issues" way back then too. Just like you.
Dont'cha just love it when people expose their "issues" in public like this? I know I do.
Being cheap is one thing, being smart is another.
If Marvel really wanted to control cost- offer low pay upfront with cuts of the box office on the back end beefing up paychecks to respectible levels for the star power.
Robert Downey Jr., Sam Jackson, Terrance Howard ,Mickey Rourke, Jon Favreau- ARE ALL WELL WORTH IT
*Don Cheadle is a phenominal actor, but c'mon the fans want to see Howard play War Machine.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
