In more news of what’s apparently becoming the elephant in the room in regards to Marvel movies, Variety reported last night that Marvel Studios has offered Mickey Rourke $250,000 to play the “main villain” in Iron Man 2 – as the trade describes is, “a lowball opening offer” (emphasis on “opening,” as by all reports, Rourke has not walked from discussions.
And while little can be taken directly from what the Studio is offering the odds-on Oscar favorite for Best Actor nomination for his work in The Wrestler, it’s just the latest bit of news of possible belt-tightening with Iron Man 2. Last week, news broke that Samuel L. Jackson most likely wouldn’t be returning to his role of Nick Fury in Iron Man 2 or Avengers. The reason? “There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world,” Jackson said. No amount was noted in any of the stories about Jackson.
Additionally, last October actor Terrance Howard was replaced by Don Cheadle in Iron Man 2 (and all subsequent Jim Rhodes appearances. From the original Hollywood Reporter story: “sources close to the deal said negotiations with Howard fell through over financial differences.” The replacement, Howard later said was a surprise to him, who told National Public Radio, “”There was no explanation, (the contract) just up and vanished.”
While Variety’s original article couched the news of Marvel’s lowball offer to Rourke in terms of studios showing fiscal responsibility in lean times, it still leans many to wonder about the production costs that could be associated with Marvel’s coming films – Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor and the ensemble picture starring all three heroes, and possibly Edward Norton as Bruce Banner, Avengers. As some have pointed out, depending on who is cast as Captain America and Thor in their respective films, actor’s fees alone could push a film’s budget over $100 million.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Oh well, at least we’ll always have Iron Man if IM2 turns out to be terrible because of all the budget shortfalls. I’m more concerned about Cap and Thor, who also deserve great movies but don’t actually have any yet.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Well, aside from economic concerns, there’s also the fact that Rourke has a reputation of being incredibly hard to work with, not to mention his unstable behavior on set makes it so his presence can actively hurt a movie. When Aronofsky was fundraising for The Wrestler, almost every investor he went to refused to put up money solely because of Rourke’s involvement.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
It could be that that’s an upfront payment and Rourke’s proposed deal gets him points on the back end.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
If this is true, Marvel is basically doing everything they can to screw up their franchises before they really get going.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Remember, Marvel is a business first – they ALWAYS have to answer to the bottom line. The fans want the best product, but the producers want the best return on their investment. And think, who knows how many milion of dollars in salary alone before anything is filmed is a scary thought to investors.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:22 pm
attention MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT
find another production company to help with the costs. The more negative press you get the more the fans will see the product as inferior and not to their liking.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
By all accounts, the “new” Rourke has been significantly humbled by his time in the “wilderness” and is much more easygoing and friendly with the people he has to work with than he was in his first flash of fame, so Dave’s point is somewhat based on out of date information.
Also, budget isn’t everything. In fact, a tighter belt might make them work harder on the scripts and characters rather than just relying on spectacle to sell the films, so I can’t really agree with the fears that budget constraints would automatically lead to poorer movies.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:34 pm
This is a shame, Jackson & Rourke would hae been perfect along side Robert Jr. Who knows…Maybe the conspirators are right, and the economy will all workout next year when the US and EU workout issuing the new Amero currency.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Bear in mind Ed, I’ve talked to people who actually worked on The Wrestler. I’m not going to go into specifics, but when they say Rourke was, shall we say, “problematic,” I have no reason not to believe them.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
If Rourke wins an Oscar next month his asking price will go sky high. And he WILL win that Oscar.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
“The more negative press you get the more the fans will see the product as inferior and not to their liking.”
Big deal. “The fans” are numbered in their thousands, movie-goers (and DVD watchers) are numbered in their millions. Any sensible business will try to appeal to the broadest set of the marketplace, not the vocal minority.
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Dave you may have no reason to not to believe the people that told you things about Rourke, but I have reason to doubt you. I don’t know who you are. I don’t know who these people are. I don’t know what sources you are using. What I do know is the press that I have read about Rourke since he was in Sin City and it was all good. He learned from the past much like Sean Penn did. Who am I going to believe? Someone that posts on Newsarama or a reputable magazine like GQ or Esquire or even Entertainment Weekly?