DISQUS

AndyIII · 9 months ago

Great debate. Lots of good points.

In the end, I have no doubt that the studios are looking to use 'these troubling times' to work down actors salaries that, to the average person, can be objects of scorn and resentment...and throwing these stories out into the public helps bolster their positions. Painting actors as crybabies over having to settle for half of their usual 11 million dollars.

I do see it as a great opportunity for actors to have some great talking points on talk shows though...'hey, with everyone in the position we're in now, I'm just grateful to be entertaining people, the money's not that important...blah blah PR blah blah.' Then go home and cash that 5 million dollar check.

RobertFure · 9 months ago

The winner is Hunter. I don't even have to read the article to know that. Anyone defending stars bitching for more money instantly loses. Marvel is doing a fantastic job reminding actors what they really are - employees. $250k is not lowballing anyone. It's not like they're offering up SAG day rates to these people. Consider how much screen time either would get - fairly minimal. They're not the stars. They don't make star money.

Also, examine this point - Mickey Rourke is lucky to even be able to put food on the table. That guy has done enough to destroy his career, he should be happy for 250k. What is Vince paying him for Wrestlemania? That's a joke not even worth laughing at. And I think everyone knows how I feel about Sam Jackson, so blaaargggh.

Cole_Abaius · 9 months ago

I've never cared for you.

Matthew · 9 months ago

Cole, you make a terrific point in your closing statement. Although, I don't see why Marvel didn't have a problem with shelling out money to Favreau, Downey and Paltrow to return. I read in a RS interview with Downey post-IM and there's a throwaway bit where Downey talks to his agent about his new asking price of $12 million per picture. (Dunno if that figures into the equation if Downey was locked in for 4 movies under Marvel's contract when he signed on to do IM, but he may be counting his chickens early if he thinks he's prime leading man material outside of IM.)

Cole_Abaius · 9 months ago

Actually, Marvel did have a problem with giving Favreau a major payday, but it didn't last long. Back in June or July there were a few stories that ran about how he wasn't on board for a sequel because of money holdouts. They got resolved fairly quickly as I remember, though.

MVP · 9 months ago

Offering only $250K to Mickey Rourke is just plain disrespectful especially since he will have a very large part in IM as the villain. I think he has a lot of new fans and plenty of old fans when he was an A-list star from the 80s that would want to see him in IM. $250K is not a lot when you factor in all the fees he has to pay out to his manager, agent, and others per film.

Nevernude · 9 months ago

I'm afraid Hunter wins on this one. Actors are employees! treat them as such. The outrageous salaries given to them for shitty movies is gettingg outta hand.
If Rourke turned down IM and Sam Jackson refuses to play Fury, fine...actors can be replaced. I'd go see IM2 anyday without those 2 guys..RDJ and Rockwell have more than guaranteed that IM2 will be awesome...with or without Sam Jackson's motherf*cking swearing!

TL_is_now_TJL · 9 months ago

It's such a crock that the studios are going to blame the economy for not being able to pay anybody - they always try to lowball thier stars, particularly with these franchise pictures.
Sam Jackson's cameo in IM set the wheels in motion for a future Avengers picture, which will be a nice payday for Marvel. It's not fair to try to squeeze him out.

CaptainReg0981 · 9 months ago

It's gonna suck for Iron Man 2 and the future movie titles for Marvel. It is the economy that's doing this and why not just take the offer and make the damn movies? Egos and pride does play a big huge mess for some actors who thinks that they are way better than the offers being given to them.

jack2jack · 9 months ago

Would you "rather"eat a prime cut of any piece of meat, chicken or fish? Or have something the butcher threw out as scraps? Would you "rather" have a qualified surgeon operating on you or your loved one? Or someone who barely made it out of medical school and has a substance abuse problem?

Problem is you'd be o.k. with either as long as the meat does not make you sick and the surgeon had a phenomenal assistant in the operating room. Knowing that you would be better off with the first choice in each and everyway, who would not want the best? My Dad always said, if you want the best you have to be preapared to pay for the best. If not, don't complain about the outcome. Same applies to Marvel. We will never see the likes of salaries Hollywierd makes.

But in this game you have to play to win. Actors draw people to movies not studios.

Arou101 · 9 months ago

Why in the fuck is everyone's panties in a bunch about Rourke getting 250k? He's the one that is doing the movie, not you. If he settled for 250k then he settled for 250k, it's not your concern to shed tears for a man who made a business decision to take a role at that cost. For all we know Rourke is perfectly happy with everything and you're bitching over nothing.

As for Jackson. Meh, I could care less.

ANGRYBROOMSTICK · 9 months ago

i always knew why Mickey Rourke is badass.

DaisyM · 7 months ago

Hey He did The Wrestler for nothing so he probably needed money badly - and Marvel knew it and tried to take advantage of it - like a business would - but that doesnt mean its ok - The actors are the ones who take almost all the public responsibility for a film - theyre the ones with their bleebs on the line. Everyone else involved can go away and hide.

ANGRYBROOMSTICK · 9 months ago

i hate overpaid movie stars. Yes, they should quit whining and take the damn money already. Oh so what if they're not paid 3 million dollars? boo hoo!!!!