|
|
Post by Erik on Jan 15, 2009 6:11:51 GMT -5
Iron Man 2: More Mickey, less Sammy
The reluctant superhero ruled the box office in summer of 2008 (well, after "The Dark Knight"), so a sequel was all but inevitable. Word 'round the campfire is that Mickey Rourke, who recently won a Golden Globe for his heartbreaking work in "The Wrestler," will play Crimson Dynamo, a Russian arms dealer, in "Iron Man 2." Meanwhile, rumors swirled that Samuel L. Jackson, who played Nick Fury in the first flick, may not appear in the sequel. Searches on the both actors, as well as "iron man 2 casting" and "iron man 2 rumors" blasted off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 30, 2009 2:01:33 GMT -5
The more I hear about IRON MAN 2 the squirmier I get. First there was the rumored fighting between Jon Favreau and Marvel over money as Favreau felt he deserved more money for a sequel (damn skippy) then Terrance Howard jumped ship. He also said the dispute was over money but I've read that he thinks he's an R&B singer now and wants to concentrate on his 'singing career' and just used the money dispute as an excuse.
As for Samuel L. Jackson...well, a friend of a friend of a friend who I spoke to today said that he's heard Sam Jackson just doesn't want to guest-star in these Marvel movies. He wants a NICK FURY movie of his own and he's holding out for that.
As for Mickey Rourke, just the fact that nobody seems to know exactly what role he'll be playing says to me that just because he's 'hot' again, they want to plug him into the movie. Personally, I can't see him playing either The Crimson Dynamo or Whiplash.
Unless Marvel gets it's act together and issues definite statements as to cast and story, I'm going to put IRON MAN 2 on the backburner.
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 30, 2009 7:55:08 GMT -5
To makes things worse, there's a persistent rumor that Marvel is trying to produce Iron Man 2 on the cheap, to the point that they offered Rourke only $250,000 for his role. Which wouldn't be unreasonable for a small film like The Wrestler, maybe, but is insultingly cheap for an offer to an actor just about guaranteed for a Best Actor nomination (which he did pick up), in a multi-million special effects extravaganza.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 30, 2009 11:35:09 GMT -5
To makes things worse, there's a persistent rumor that Marvel is trying to produce Iron Man 2 on the cheap, to the point that they offered Rourke only $250,000 for his role. Which wouldn't be unreasonable for a small film like The Wrestler, maybe, but is insultingly cheap for an offer to an actor just about guaranteed for a Best Actor nomination (which he did pick up), in a multi-million special effects extravaganza. See, that's what I can't wrap my brain around. Didn't IRON MAN make somewhere between $300 and $400 million dollars? Why screw around with what worked so well the first time? Give everybody a pay bump up, get the same crew back together and turn 'em loose. This is no time for Marvel to start being cheap when they're movies are on the upswing. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonc on Jan 30, 2009 12:05:46 GMT -5
I might have said this before somewhere else, but what the hell..
I am firmly of the belief - having read all rumors etc - that last year was a fluke.
Marvel and DC will now be terrified of rocking the boat or even the possibility of derailing the money train. I believe that they will interfere with any future movies, making them money-safe and putting in what they think the fanboys will want. Just like Spiderman III.
The only superhero movie I have any confidence in atm is WATCHMEN, and I am still prepared to be disappointed when I go see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 30, 2009 14:42:23 GMT -5
I might have said this before somewhere else, but what the hell.. I am firmly of the belief - having read all rumors etc - that last year was a fluke. Marvel and DC will now be terrified of rocking the boat or even the possibility of derailing the money train. I believe that they will interfere with any future movies, making them money-safe and putting in what they think the fanboys will want. Just like Spiderman III. The only superhero movie I have any confidence in is WATCHMEN, and I am still prepared to be disappointed when I go see it. I'd really like to sit in on some of these meetings that Marvel and Warner Bros. suits have. You'd think that after the success of both IRON MAN and DARK KNIGHT they'd say; "Okay; top notch actors, directors, technical talent, writers=BIG Box Office...let's not screw with that formula" I'm confident in WATCHMAN since it's Zack Snyder and "300" was outstanding visually and storywise. The less said about SPIDER-MAN 3, the better. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 30, 2009 15:03:15 GMT -5
The less said about SPIDER-MAN 3, the better. I didn't like the movie, either, but the magazine Video Watchdog published an interesting review of the DVD. The reviewer quotes Sam Raimi on the commentary track as saying that Marvel (or the producers acting on the company's behalf) demanded certain plot elements late into production, including Mary Jane Watson in peril at the climax of the film (just as in the first two films). According to the review, Raimi wasn't interested but was "talked" into it and had to convince some reluctant actors to work with that ending. If Raimi's commentary track is that enlightening about the production, I might Netflix the movie just to listen to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jan 30, 2009 15:08:13 GMT -5
The less said about SPIDER-MAN 3, the better. I didn't like the movie, either, but the magazine Video Watchdog published an interesting review of the DVD. The reviewer quotes Sam Raimi on the commentary track as saying that Marvel (or the producers acting on the company's behalf) demanded certain plot elements late into production, including Mary Jane Watson in peril at the climax of the film (just as in the first two films). According to the review, Raimi wasn't interested but was "talked" into it and had to convince some reluctant actors to work with that ending. If Raimi's commentary track is that enlightening about the production, I might Netflix the movie just to listen to it. And as both Tom Deja and I mentioned on one of "Marvel At The Movies" episodes we did: Sam Raimi was under pressure to have Venom in the very first SPIDER-MAN movie and he was able to fight the suits off until S-P3 when the suits came down on him hard: "Look, we let you do the first two movies your way. Now we want this, this and this." And Venom was one of those 'this'es |
|
|
|
Post by jasonc on Jan 30, 2009 17:37:56 GMT -5
I'd really like to sit in on some of these meetings that Marvel and Warner Bros. suits have. You'd think that after the success of both IRON MAN and DARK KNIGHT they'd say; "Okay; top notch actors, directors, technical talent, writers=BIG Box Office...let's not screw with that formula" You'd think, wouldn't you? |
|
