'Iron Man 2' Update: Mickey Rourke Offered Peanuts
Filed under: Action, Casting, Deals, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand, Comic/Superhero/Geek
Well, it would appear as if the harsh economic times are beginning to hurt our much-anticipated superhero sequels, as Variety reports that some actors are having to accept huge paycuts. With the exception of dudes like Will Smith and Johnny Depp (who still earn their ridiculously high quotes), everyone else in Hollywood is beginning to feel the hurt. For example, Variety says that the opening offer to Mickey Rourke for his villainous role in Iron Man 2 was a whopping $250,000 from Marvel. And while I'm sure we'd all love to make that kind of money for a gig, understand that for an Oscar-nominated actor enjoying a huge comeback year ... well, that's kind of insulting -- especially since we're talking Iron Man 2 and not some small, no-budget indie.But it's these kinds of lowball offers that are also turning some actors away. Marvel attempted to pull the same sorta thing with Samuel L. Jackson, who was supposed to return to the big screen as Nick Fury, but the man walked claiming he'll never play the character for that money. [Raises hand] I'll play him ...
Here's my question to you, though: Should some of these actors suck it up and take less money if it makes their fans happy, or should they stick to their guns and hold out for the chunk of change they think they deserve?
Quick List: Five Favorite Ice-Bound Movie Moments
Blu-ray Review: Funny People
See A Little 'Kick-Ass' In This Teaser Trailer
The Geek Beat: Rated M For Mature
'Clash of the Titans' Trailer Now Online!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
1-25-2009 @ 1:29PM
PM said...
It should be relative to what the expected gross would be. I know I'd be pissed if I was a major character in Iron Man 2, earned 250k and the film made 800 million worldwide.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 1:29PM
Rick Bman said...
How about instead of low balling someone like Mickey Rourke, that actually has talent, we lower the salaries of people like Will Smith and Keanu Reeves who have careers based on name recognition and not talent.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 2:51PM
Shark said...
I agree they shouldn't be low balling Mickey Rourke, but you assessment of talent is a bit off. Will Smith has been nominated twice himself for an Academy Award, won multiple Grammy Awards and is one of the most bankable stars in Hollywood. While you may not enjoy his films, I think he has earned the right to be recognized as talented. Keanu Reeves, i'll give you that one.
1-25-2009 @ 3:07PM
Rick Bman said...
Perhaps I am being a bit harsh on Will Smith (not that I in any way think that Oscar Noms are necessarily indicative of talent), he has done some good stuff. For the most part though, in his movies he plays exactly the same character. I could go my whole life without hearing "ahh hells nah" again and be completely happy. I've never been utterly impressed when he stepped outside that character either. He's not bad when he tries to show range but I would never really say he is great either.
1-25-2009 @ 1:38PM
Wendy said...
I agree with PM, but at the same time, it's hard to think of some people being paid such a high wage when some in the world could live the rest of their lives off of $250,000. I say, give Rourke a better wage and then force all the actors (etc.) in the world to pay off the mortgages of their lowly supporters ;)
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 4:19PM
Steve said...
It has nothing to do with comparing it to what a regular person makes. If the movie generates $800million, no matter what a single-mom at mcdonald's makes, someone's making money. If Rourke is part of the reason it makes that much money, he should get paid. If your company said we made record profits this year, please take a pay cut, you'd probably quit.
Same with pro athletes. The teams and the leagues are making billions upon billions and we complain that the people whose backs their making it on are making millions.
1-26-2009 @ 9:28AM
Kevin said...
Steve, you are the voice of reason. In every job in this country people expect to be paid in relation to what they earn. People went crazy when they announced that Michael Jordan was going to make 25 mill a year. You know what? He was more underpaid then anyone posting on this website because what he actually generated for the people paying him was far in excess of that amount. If Mickey Rourke signs on for this movie and that causes it to earn an extra 10,20,30,or 50 million dollars, then if he gets paid 250K than he was extremely under compensated. Its one of the basics of capitalism; you earn what you're worth, and the market decides what you're worth, not what we all think is "fair". Being paid whats fair in relation to what everyone else in the country earns is called communism.
1-26-2009 @ 10:59PM
Wendy said...
I was, sort of, kidding, but my tone was clearly not punctuated enough by the *wink* at the end of the comment. Talent deserves recognition, as I noted when agreeing with PM. I was simply acknowledging that I think some stars get paid too much, not that I thought $250,000 was adequate for Rourke's role in the second film, particularly when the last one made $800m.
1-25-2009 @ 2:00PM
Jim said...
These tough economic times aren't necessarily going to affect Hollywood as it will/has other industries. During tough times, people may scale back or eliminate a vacation but still go to the movies for a bit of escapism. So if box office isn't hurt by the downturn, then no...actors shouldn't suddenly be getting pay cuts. However, if studios/investors are worried even about Iron Man 2 doing good box office, then simply give the actors a higher percentage of the back end if you're going to pay them less up front.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 2:01PM
Andy said...
F**k em' I say, they could work for free for the rest of their lives if they wanted to (well, I'm sure Jackson certainly could, don't know about Rourke). Now I'm not suggesting they should have to do that, but christ, how pathetic. Jackson loses major respect points for me (not that he would care, presumably) - but you'd think he'd be willing to do it for the fans.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 6:43PM
Con said...
I think that the actors feel that the studios are trying to exploit them.
It feels as though the studios, still making big bucks for each blockbusters, want to make more profit thus are downsizing different departments, inevitably stumbling across the actors' high wages. The actors' "prestige" are a form of marketing, per se, their ridiculously high wages encompass more than 120 minutes of acting.
1-25-2009 @ 6:49PM
Con said...
Oh and the link to your comment is that, I do not think you should lose faith in actors just because they seem to be greedy scum. Samuel L. Jackson is filthy rich (enough) and perhaps there is another side to this.
1-25-2009 @ 2:22PM
Paul said...
I really don't believe that Variety article saying that Mickey Rourke was only offered $250,000 for Iron Man 2.
I can imagine Marvel giving him a fairly low offer though, since he's only started to make a comeback and is not a proven box-office draw.
Overall though, actors should really suck it up and take less money to please their fans. They're already making so much money as it is.
Samuel L. Jackson is being really lame complaining about his offer to play Nick Fury again. Unless Nick Fury has a much, much larger part in Iron Man 2 (which I really doubt), he shouldn't be offered that much.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 4:21PM
Steve said...
Who is Nick Fury? I don't remember Jackson being in Iron Man 2.
1-27-2009 @ 10:47AM
Kevin said...
Steve,
Nick Fury is the head of SHIELD. If you wait until the end of the credits on Iron Man you'll see a bonus scene with him in it.
1-25-2009 @ 2:26PM
stevenh said...
this is bullshit. the recession has nothing to do with this, seeing as how its been proven that during times of econimic crisis, people tend to flock to the movies (TDK, anyone?) Therefore, the studios will still be making a shitload of money, so it's wrong to pimp out talent like this. Especially when no talent hacks are still raking in $10-20 mil a pic.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 2:34PM
Mr. R said...
When you think of how much money studios made out of The Dark Knight, you think actors should get more.
Then, you think of how much smaller actors earn, specially in theatrical circuits and indie films and you can conclude that it's ridiculous to get 15 million dollars for three months of work or less (Keanu and up).
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 3:51PM
Brian said...
Walk! As a fan, and as much as I would like to see some of these actors in these parts, the actors need to do what is best for them (and frankly don't owe me anything)
I'm not sure I understand what's completely at play here, especially when Marvel did SO MANY THINGS RIGHT with Iron Man to begin with.
I'd imagine that an actor/actress - that felt that they were being respected (and paid appropriately) for their work on a project that is fulfilling them (creatively & financially) would be jumping out of their skins to promote their work.
Reply
1-25-2009 @ 7:39PM
Dan said...
I think you said it perfectly, I couldn't agree more. Marvel is fucking up.
1-26-2009 @ 12:44PM
vegimorph said...
probably dumb to say but it would probably be easier to wait until the recession is over before making Iron Man 2
Reply