Samuel L. Jackson May No Longer Be Nick Fury!

[Agent 194]

Well, if they're going to mess this up....and many news items of late are suggesting they are....then let's just go back to the original Nick Fury and throw out all this Ulitmates stuff that I don't get anyway. Yeah, I know....I'm, what do the kids call it?, .... old school.

Marvel needs to handle this one well. It's the only thing really good they've done lately in my opinion. Too important to mess it up.

[The Major]

Marvel needs to handle this one well. It's the only thing really good they've done lately in my opinion.
You didn't like anything in the Iron Man movie besides SLJ guest-starring? :wow:

Too important to mess it up.

I disagree. Losing SLJ would be disappointing, he just isn't that difficult to replace with another qualified actor. I'm sure Marvel could find many suitable replacements in Hollywood if they need to.

[TheVileOne]

To me Terence Howard not coming back is worse than losing Jackson.

Not that I hate or dislike Don Cheadle. I just would've preferred Howard imho.

However, we still don't have official word Jackson isn't coming back, so we'll see.

[RogueDK]

Not that I hate or dislike Don Cheadle. I just would've preferred Howard imho.

Me too.

However, we still don't have official word Jackson isn't coming back, so we'll see.

Yeah, I think when the smoke clears SLJ is coming back.

[8Diagrams(WU)]

If Jackson wont be fury then bring the hoff fury!!

[terry78]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39891

If this is accurate, then....I agree fully with Sam and Terrence

[FaT_tONle]

Nothing new in that report... we have to wait for the next development.

[TheVileOne]

That was weird for AICN to post that. Merrick getting on a soap box over old news.

Not to mention it's only taking all these reports at face value.

I mean when EW reported on the Howard issue, they gave different information than all the stuff that had people wanting to take the torches and pitchforks to Marvel over.

[Chewy]

Anyone else getting the feeling that this $750 million + lawsuit is probably a contributing factor in Marvel's tightening of their supporting actors' paychecks? It certainly would make sense...

[TheVileOne]

What lawsuit? Link?

[Chewy]

Here you go

January 26, 2009 - Martin Garbus, Esq., has filed a shareholder derivative suit Monday, January 26, against Marvel Entertainment and its chairman Isaac Perlmutter, as well as Stan Lee, the creator of Marvel's major superhero characters and former Marvel Studio head, Avi Arad. Garbus is suing for recovery in excess of $750 million representing one-half of the proceeds from such blockbuster films as Spider-Man, Iron Man and X-Men franchises.

The suit accuses Perlmutter, Arad, Marvel and Stan Lee of denying Stan Lee Media, Inc. (SLMI) shareholders their rights in ownership of 50% of both the legendary superhero characters and intellectual properties created by Stan Lee, which have become among the top entertainment franchises in the world.

SLMI was placed into Chapter 11 Reorganization in Bankruptcy by Stan Lee in 2001 after the dot-com bust and emerged in November 2006, beginning a titanic battle between shareholders and the company's founder, Lee.

SLMI shareholders contend that Lee and Perlmutter, along with Lee's partner Arthur Lieberman and former Marvel Studios president Avi Arad, improperly colluded to hide and misappropriate financial interests in Lee's creations assigned to Stan Lee Media in 1998 and reaffirmed in 1999.

Mr. Garbus will answer questions on the lawsuit at a press conference Tuesday.

SOURCE (http://movies.ign.com/articles/948/948277p1.html)

[TheVileOne]

I'm confused.

Is a shareholder of Stan Lee's bankrupt company saying that they have half ownership of the media profits of all these characters Stan Lee originally created for Marvel and are now reaping in tons of money?

I mean I get that Stan Lee created them, but where the heck was STMLI's stake in it?

That second to last paragraph is very confusing . . . should've gone to law school.

[mclay18]

The news keeps getting worse:

Iron Man fans were in a frenzy when they heard the film sequel wouldn’t feature Terrence Howard. How will they react now that Samuel L. Jackson appears to be getting short-changed also?

In an interview with IGN, everyone’s favorite BAMF discussed the possibility of him making a return as Nick Fury in Iron Man. It doesn’t look good, and this time the blame may be on Marvel Studios.

“I would love to do it. I’m not sure that they would love for me to do it. It seems as though they’re having money problems,” Jackson said with a grin. He continued by saying, “they’re caught up in the economic crisis also. Iron Man 1 didn’t make much money, so they can’t afford to pay the rest of us anymore.”

Jackson is likely aware that Iron Man made over $582 million worldwide at the box office. Even with a $140 million budget, there is no way that Marvel didn’t bank off of it. Newsflash to Marvel; Samuel L. played Shaft, he doesn’t like getting the shaft. You can watch the clip here. It would have been great to know how much Jackson wanted in relation to what Marvel was offering. [insert video link]

The comments are contrasting from previous thoughts laid out by the Academy Award nominee, which is a shame. Jackson spoke with MTV in July about his much hyped cameo at the end of the Iron Man credits, explaining that he was, “looking forward to going to work soon” as Fury, likely appearing in myriad Marvel comic films including Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor and The Avengers. That all changed once negotiations started.

Marvel is trying to steer clear of high salaries for actors, a notion given weight after they replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle. They also have reportedly only offered Mickey Rourke $250,000 to take a role as a villain, and are expecting Jackson to take a pay cut as well. We’re all excited to see an Iron Man sequel, but could Marvel be killing the momentum of the first film by undercutting their talent? We sure hope not. They’ve done a great job of taking ownership of the Iron Man and Hulk franchises in 2008. It’d be a shame to watch them throw it all away. Maybe Marvel execs should start wearing WWTSD bracelets, as in “What would Tony Stark do?”

SOURCE (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/samuel-l-jackson-no-longer-bringing-fury-for-iron-man-2.php)

Marvel is shooting themselves in the foot. They have Favreau, RDJ and GP back -- so why are they refusing to pay up for SLJ? Gwyneth is a supporting character, but she's back on board, but no Jackson? Surely they can make him an offer to take an upfront pay cut in exchange for a percentage of the B.O./home video grosses.

This is gonna backfire on Marvel, I just know it. Can't they just cut down costs by shooting elsewhere than California? Michigan has a hefty tax rebate (30%) if they have the proper studios, or they could always shoot overseas.

[Chewy]

How does the "news keep getting worse"? That's basically the same thing SLJ said a week ago.

There's still no definitive answer as to whether SLJ will be back or not, so I don't get what all the panic is about.

[mclay18]

Well if Marvel keeps insisting on pay cuts for its returning actors, then we'll see SLJ out of the picture.

Hopefully, Marvel will come to their senses and agree to a reasonable salary. (They should've locked him in for a multi-pic deal like they did with RDJ.)

[Darkness Falls]

we're comic fans......

we find panic in even the smallest of details reguarding comic book movie

[TheVileOne]

How is this worse?

All that article did was rehash all the news that's come out before and spin it to make Marvel look like the villain.

That was a SHH post passed off as journalism.

[The Major]

The news keeps getting worse:



SOURCE (http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/samuel-l-jackson-no-longer-bringing-fury-for-iron-man-2.php)

Marvel is shooting themselves in the foot. They have Favreau, RDJ and GP back -- so why are they refusing to pay up for SLJ? Gwyneth is a supporting character, but she's back on board, but no Jackson?

There's only so much money to go around. Fav, RDJ and Paltrow wouldn't be cheap after the first film's success. Add in the budget of the special effects and whatever else they need to make a film something needs to get less money. High paid actors would be the the first to go since they are easier to replace with cheaper ones without lowering the quality to much.

Jackson's character is more expandable then Paltrow's. He could be a supporting player but he could be a minor character, as well. My guess is Fury will get a smaller role in the film if SLJ is kept.

SLJ would have a stronger case had this been a Nick Fury sequel.

Surely they can make him an offer to take an upfront pay cut in exchange for a percentage of the B.O./home video grosses.

This is gonna backfire on Marvel, I just know it. Can't they just cut down costs by shooting elsewhere than California? Michigan has a hefty tax rebate (30%) if they have the proper studios, or they could always shoot overseas.

Agreed.

[Movies205]

I'm confused.

Is a shareholder of Stan Lee's bankrupt company saying that they have half ownership of the media profits of all these characters Stan Lee originally created for Marvel and are now reaping in tons of money?

I mean I get that Stan Lee created them, but where the heck was STMLI's stake in it?

That second to last paragraph is very confusing . . . should've gone to law school.

From what I can gander and take this for 2cent speculation it is but the company went under in 2001 so it seems Stan Lee made confidential deals with shareholders prior (keep in mind this is before Spider-Man 1), and when the company went bankrupt, Stan Lee fail to keep up those promises either out of ignorance or deliberate intent, and now that the company has pulled itself out of the gutter, it wants its share of the pie.

[TheVileOne]

Well I imagine that's if you want to believe the shareholder's story.

[Octoberist]

man, there's so much drama.

with the economy right now, it's hard to see how Marvel can do The Avengers ACCORDING to their current plan. Perhaps, they need to sit down and figure out what to do with the movies, instead of just "Let's make so and so for 2012 for our Avengers movie in 20whatever".

I'm not against an Avengers movie, but the economy is so drastically different when they actually planned it out, that they may have to reconsider some of their options and ideas.

[TheVileOne]

Octoberist, don't confuse courtroom drama and legal posturing for more melodrama.

Listen guys, worry about things when there are actually things to worry about. People here were writing death threats to Fox over the Watchmen lawsuit, when a settlement was made this month. They filed the lawsuit like last February in 2008. Anyone realistically should've predicted they would settle out of court ultimately.

Also, everyone already forgetting Marvel's lawsuit against Sony? Marvel sued Sony to get the film rights back for Spider-man. Marvel felt they were owed more money and they didn't appreciate Sony releasing Spider-man together with MIB2 to pad out MIB2's box office with a sneaky bit of block booking (Spider-man/MIB2 double feature event in summer of 2002).

What happened? Even though Marvel said they wanted the Spidey film rights back to take elsewhere, they worked things out with Sony. Spider-man 2 was NOT jeapordized. And Sony now apparently has the movie rights for Spider-man for the far future.

Just saying, this lawsuit doesn't suddenly kill the projects.

This isn't IMAGI we are talking about.

[Movies205]

Well I imagine that's if you want to believe the shareholder's story.

True True, I was just pointing out there POV from what I gathered and that's up to the courts to decide. They may just be shooting in the dark for some type of small settlement or perhaps they actually have something, its up to the courts/lawyers, etc to decide.

[Wesley Dodds]

I've got no problem with this news. I slightly resented Jacksons casting... Its an Iron Man movie! NOT an ULTIMATE Iron Man movie... Keep it in 616! Not all of us like The Ultimates.
It'll be easy enough to explain too... The Jackson Fury at the end of Iron Man is a double... A stand-In. Being the head of a global security outfit like SHIELD, it's not unrealistic to think that Fury would have plenty of these... Then in Iron Man 2 the real Fury's revealed... This will satisfy both Ultimate and 616 fans... It may be unrealistic but im hopin' for Clint Eastwood, although Paul Newman would've been the best.

[Movies205]

I didn't mind Samuel L. Jackson, but if anything Nick Fury should be in his 40-50s not 70s-80s.

http://forums.superherohype.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5620&stc=1&d=1233079675

Heston played a 616 Fury-esque character in True Lies...

[mclay18]

That'd be a big cop-out if IM-2 explained away SLJ's no-show that way.

[Movies205]

That'd be a big cop-out if IM-2 explained away SLJ's no-show that way.

Little things like that people don't really care about... All people care about is seeing a good movie for the $10 there paying, hell ****in Batman Forever switch actors and made even more money, switching actors is something really only fans care about and is only moaned about if the movie turns out bad. Quality speaks volumes, unless it something like Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker which regardless if you like his performance or not, its become iconic to that specific batseries. No one going miss Jackson for a less than minute cameo that came at the end of the credits, unless the guy they get to replace him sucks.

[Rac]

Originally Posted by Agent 194 http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=16332480#post16332480)
Marvel needs to handle this one well. It's the only thing really good they've done lately in my opinion.
You didn't like anything in the Iron Man movie besides SLJ guest-starring? :wow:
I think he meant the whole Iron Man film. I agree with him. Iron Man was the first good Marvel flick since Spider-Man 2.

I really hope Marvel won't **** this up. But if they gonna be cheap with the budget, I don't know man...

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think he meant the whole Iron Man film. I agree with him. Iron Man was the first good Marvel flick since Spider-Man 2.

I really hope Marvel won't **** this up. But if they gonna be cheap with the budget, I don't know man...

Yeah, I am getting worried as well, they are being unbelievably cheap with the actors it seems, at this rate we will be getting a different cast in every movie in each franchise. I know they are a young studio, but come on, this stuff is common sense.

[marcvader]

Besides Rhodes, who's been recast?

[TheVileOne]

No one.

[FaT_tONle]

Look... if they go 616... just shed continuity... pretend the Jackson cameo never even happened. Just explain that Stark got a memo from earlier regarding the "Avengers Initiative"... and SLJ never happened. Of course I think that is a terrible way to go about it. Can you at least pay the guy to be in Avengers... in a Morgan Freeman/Batman type role TOPS... SURELY Marvel has enough money for that???

[Fly Guy]

I've got no problem with this news. I slightly resented Jacksons casting... Its an Iron Man movie! NOT an ULTIMATE Iron Man movie... Keep it in 616! Not all of us like The Ultimates.
It'll be easy enough to explain too... The Jackson Fury at the end of Iron Man is a double... A stand-In. Being the head of a global security outfit like SHIELD, it's not unrealistic to think that Fury would have plenty of these... Then in Iron Man 2 the real Fury's revealed... This will satisfy both Ultimate and 616 fans... It may be unrealistic but im hopin' for Clint Eastwood, although Paul Newman would've been the best.


It's kinda funny. Marvel has been using some bits and pieces from the 616 and ultimate universes in all of their movies. But I think since they've already introduced Fury as black, why not get this guy to play him.....

AVERY BROOKS....
DEEP SPACE 9
SPENCER FOR HIRE (HAWKE)
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8914/siskosta.jpg

Personally, that's who I thought he looked like to me when I first read Ultimates.

[mclay18]

I'm not sure how the multi-picture deal works, but RDJ has a four-pic deal when he signed on to do IM. Does that kind of contract allow for a fixed pay rate or a steady increase depending on the success of the sequels? I'm confused about it, honestly.

I read in a RS interview that RDJ was mentioned in passing talking with his agent about his new asking price of $12 million per film. Judging by how Marvel's going about IM-2, it seems that they're content to pay the asking price for RDJ, Favreau and Paltrow but are skimping on the supporting players rather than recasting the leading man and getting a new director. I'm confused about the legalities of multi-pic contracts and payment.

[FaT_tONle]

Avery Brooks is not a terrible idea...

I'm not sure how the multi-picture deal works, but RDJ has a four-pic deal when he signed on to do IM. Does that kind of contract allow for a fixed pay rate or a steady increase depending on the success of the sequels? I'm confused about it, honestly.



I read in a RS interview that RDJ was mentioned in passing talking with his agent about his new asking price of $12 million per film. Judging by how Marvel's going about IM-2, it seems that they're content to pay the asking price for RDJ, Favreau and Paltrow but are skimping on the supporting players rather than recasting the leading man and getting a new director.

I think RDJ's pay will gradually increase. I think Marvel still has to sign him so the four-picture deal or three picture deal is never a guarantee. He will probably be making anywhere from 15-20 by IM3.

[Aluchak]

They should stop *ucking actors over. First Terrence now Samuel Jackson. Who's next Robert Downey Jr.?

[Chewy]

I think RDJ's pay will gradually increase. I think Marvel still has to sign him so the four-picture deal or three picture deal is never a guarantee. He will probably be making anywhere from 15-20 by IM3.
I'd bet anything that they're going to offer their Thor/Cap/IM leads more for the solo flicks and reduced pay for Avengers, sort of contract 2 movies at once for each. Avengers' budget is going to be massive as is

[Adrian89]

They should stop *ucking actors over. First Terrence now Samuel Jackson. Who's next Robert Downey Jr.?

I wanted to write exactly the same lol thankfully I saw your post soon enough.

Well let's hope not, because if Downey won't be there in 2, I'm completely losing my interest in Iron Man.

[RogueDK]

They should stop *ucking actors over. First Terrence now Samuel Jackson. Who's next Robert Downey Jr.?
No, they're going to take care of their golden boy. I don't think that they'd be that stupid to alienate fans by screwing Downey over...

Everyone else might be expendable/interchangeable though.

[FaT_tONle]

I won't be suprised if only RDJ returns for IM3... if the movie even happens. Still a ways away. 2013 earliest... 2014 is more likely. I know Cheadle is signed for Avengers... whether he returns a third time is anyone's guess. I wouldn't be shocked if Paltrow leaves after the second film... the big female leads usually only do two films max. Plus it would be kind of cliche having Stark end up with Potts at the end of the trilogy, which is probably what would happen, and I don't think that is neccessary at all. I hope they don't recast Paltrow though. Whomever plays Black Widow/Hawkeye will probably stay in the Avengers franchise. If the Mickey Rourke deal falls through my guess is it will be one film tops. I'd love Rockwell to return a second time depending on what his role is in IM2 as J. Hammer... but I won't lose sleep if IM2 ends up being Hammers' only appearance. As for Jackson, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say he will never play Fury again. Again, it's not going to bother me that much as long as they have a decent alternative solution. But I strongly feel Marvel just needs to get the rest of the deals done for IM2.

[Fly Guy]

Avery Brooks is not a terrible idea...



I think RDJ's pay will gradually increase. I think Marvel still has to sign him so the four-picture deal or three picture deal is never a guarantee. He will probably be making anywhere from 15-20 by IM3.


Avery Brooks would be a great move!! Check him out....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U82V_NjhOs

http://images.tvrage.net/shows/3/2577.jpg

[RogueDK]

Brooks would make a great Plan B for Fury. Is SLJ officially out of the plan? I'd prefer this all be swept under the rug and have Sam return but Avery in the role takes some of the sting away... :grin:

[Chewy]

No. Only Howard is "out of the plan".

[Fly Guy]

Brooks would make a great Plan B for Fury. Is SLJ officially out of the plan? I'd prefer this all be swept under the rug and have Sam return but Avery in the role takes some of the sting away... :grin:


I think we can stick a fork in Sam Jackson. His wife, Honey, can't find his "super suit".

Somebody please do an eye patch manip on Brooks.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think we can stick a fork in Sam Jackson. His wife, Honey, can't find his "super suit".

Somebody please do an eye patch manip on Brooks.

http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09053/2577237.jpg

[The Major]

I really hope Marvel won't **** this up. But if they gonna be cheap with the budget, I don't know man...

Cheap is the wrong word to describe it. They only have so much money which they must get as much out of it as possible. This is very important since Marvel is still a fledgling movie company and the economy is tanking. They can't grow by keeping expendable people around. SLJ's a great actor but he is expendable to the IM franchise.

[Fly Guy]

http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09053/2577237.jpg


Works for me.....

http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09053/2577237.jpg

[ThePoisonPuppet]

If we have no Jackson, I don't want Nick Fury.

[Brian Braddock]

It's kinda funny. Marvel has been using some bits and pieces from the 616 and ultimate universes in all of their movies. But I think since they've already introduced Fury as black, why not get this guy to play him.....

AVERY BROOKS....
DEEP SPACE 9
SPENCER FOR HIRE (HAWKE)
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8914/siskosta.jpg

Personally, that's who I thought he looked like to me when I first read Ultimates.

Not a bad idea at all;

Truth be told, one of the flaws I find with SLJ is that when watching him, you're constantly aware of who he is. He's got so much personality and is so unique that, for me, it effects him being able to lose himself in roles.

Seriously, how many people have you heard say SLJ is the same in every movie? Hell, Dave Chappell even took the pi$$ out of him for it.

My fear would be that I'd be watching the movie and instead of thinking 'There's Nick Fury', I'd be thinking 'There's Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury'.

Avery Brooks, while looking similiar enough for continuity purposes, doesnt have that whole 'megastar' thing handing round his neck the way Jackson does.

I'm expecting a lot of people to disagree with me on this one but what acn I say, it's the way I feel...............

[FaT_tONle]

Maybe you don't need a megastar for Fury... just get a solid actor in there. What bigger name are you getting than SLJ if you want to stay Ultimate? You can only go downward in terms of star power anyway.

[Brian Braddock]

That's why the Avery Brooks suggestion is becoming more like a work of genius the more I mull it over.

A lesser known, solid actors always gonna be more believeable in the role where the characters already known as opposed to an out-and-out megastar.

[marcvader]

I would take Brooks in a heart beat over Jackson any day. Sam has been wearing thin on me for several years now.

[The Major]

That's why the Avery Brooks suggestion is becoming more like a work of genius the more I mull it over.

A lesser known, solid actors always gonna be more believeable in the role where the characters already known as opposed to an out-and-out megastar.
:up:

[Brian Braddock]

>phew<

I was expecting to get slayed over what I said about SLJ;

Good to know there are a few people who seem to share a similiar viewpoint.

:up:

[powerbomb1411]

>phew<

I was expecting to get slayed over what I said about SLJ;

Good to know there are a few people who seem to share a similiar viewpoint.

:up:

Outside of being in Iron Man, he's just a big joke to me. And it's not a good joke either.

[Brian Braddock]

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=11903

:D

[Hectorminator]

I think Marvel's approach to casting has been fine...so far. I'm gonna miss Howard, and I hate recasts, and yada yada..you've heard it. But I'm fine with that.

However, not only is (Ultimate) Nick Fury based on Samuel L. Jackson, but they already intorduced him. And he nailed it! He's the best man for the job because the job entails doing a Samuel L. Jackson impression.

Comic Rhodey was never based on Terrence Howard, and Don Cheadle is awesome. So whatever: save some money, Marvel.

But at first you shell out big bucks (I think?) for Robert Downey Jr., Edward Norton, Jeff Bridges, William freaking Hurt! And now, for some reason, they care about saving money on casting. Again, fine Marvel, but not on Nick Fury. The man exists and his name is Samuel L. Jackson.

[marcvader]

Ultimate Nick Fury's "appearance" is based on Sam and it wasn't always the case as it's been stated by others in this thread. Marvel needs to do what's best for them and just because he made a 30 sec post credits cameo doesn't mean they are bound to casting him. It won't make or break what they're doing with their films if he's not cast.

[Hectorminator]

Marvel needs to do what's best for the fans, not their checkbooks.

To me, those post-credits 30 seconds were some of the most important to the movie, and the future of Marvel movies as a whole.

And in a lot of ways, anyone other than Sam Jackson ordering around the Avengers in a movie of the same name = broken. Just broken.

[The Squirrel]

That's why the Avery Brooks suggestion is becoming more like a work of genius the more I mull it over.

A lesser known, solid actors always gonna be more believeable in the role where the characters already known as opposed to an out-and-out megastar.

That would be golden.

[Brian Braddock]

Marvel needs to do what's best for the fans, not their checkbooks.

To me, those post-credits 30 seconds were some of the most important to the movie, and the future of Marvel movies as a whole.

And in a lot of ways, anyone other than Sam Jackson ordering around the Avengers in a movie of the same name = broken. Just broken.

I think youre making may to big an issue out of this, personally.

Ultimate Nick Fury's "appearance" is based on Sam and it wasn't always the case as it's been stated by others in this thread. Marvel needs to do what's best for them and just because he made a 30 sec post credits cameo doesn't mean they are bound to casting him. It won't make or break what they're doing with their films if he's not cast.

Exactly, MV.

[louiebling$]

Ok? Marvel should Sacrifice their money to please fans??? Uhh no this is hollywood not dream land.. If they Absoutely can't pay SLJ what's he wants recast ,plain and simple. I don't want to take Budget money away from the film just to get One over priced actor!Brooks would Own the Role :up: as much as SLJ and won't demand A ton of money.

[Brian Braddock]

I know all the Avery Brooks talk is pure wishful thinking on our part but just imagine if Marvel already actually do have Brooks as their Fury contingency plan.

Heh.

[He-Man]

I hate recasting also but if Samuel L. doesn't come back I say get Keith David.

http://www.nndb.com/people/418/000059241/keith-david.jpg
-------------------------------

Keith David in Dead Presidents
eJufU8bTZWI

[OsGom]

I hate recasting also but if Samuel L. doesn't come back I say get Keith David.

http://www.nndb.com/people/418/000059241/keith-david.jpg
-------------------------------

Keith David in Dead Presidents
eJufU8bTZWI

Haha! I can totally get behind Keith David for Nick Fury. That voice we all know so well! He is a Master Voice-actor and a great choice for Fury.

[kedrell]

Keith would be excellent as would Avery Brooks.

[Brian Braddock]

Keith David's awesome;

He's even already played a Fury-esque head of service in Mr & Mrs Smith.

[Wesley Dodds]

I think they should give Keith David the John Nada role in the They Live! remake.

[marcvader]

You know, I just love the Brooks and David suggestions. They make too much sense.

[Philly Phanboy]

They should stop *ucking actors over. First Terrence now Samuel Jackson. Who's next Robert Downey Jr.?

Howard's salary mess really isn't the same as Jackson's though. Arad negotiated with Howard to make more money than the part really deserved for the first movie and they simply didn't want to repeat the same mistake for the second movie.

With Jackson the salary impasse is more of a negotiating battle between the studio and Jackson's agents. I'd be VERY surprised not to see SLJ back as Fury.

[SamuraiSon6]

this isnt sam's first rodeo, he is causing a stir so he gets his paycheck. sam has always been about the money, and at the end of the day, he doesnt turn down work

[sabetoonth]

i hope things with sam turn out well, but if they have no other choice, the guy who plays casy on chuck

[fu manchu]

Somehow I don't think I would have problem seeing them recast for this role, if SLJ turns it down. Besides, I think most ppl missed SLJ's cameo in the first movie and it was only few minutes.

Brooks and David are some good suggestions, methinks. No on Adam Baldwin - I like to have some continuity from the first movie (look wise).

[Norm3]

S.J. is not the NF i grew up with.

[sabetoonth]

wel i was thinking that if they could not find the right black guy to replace fury then they could go the white route, that is the only reason i want a white film fury

[RogueDK]

I hate recasting also but if Samuel L. doesn't come back I say get Keith David.

http://www.nndb.com/people/418/000059241/keith-david.jpg
-------------------------------

Keith David in Dead Presidents
eJufU8bTZWI
David = WIN. :word:

[Threshold]

Chiwetel Ejiofor FTW.

[WillardNation]

if they don't have Jackson, they shouldn't have an Ultimate Fury at all. without Jackson they need to go the 616 route. I always hated Ultimate Fury anyway.

[VenomVsSpidey]

i want jackson. jackson only. i will be upset if he doesnt play fury..but thats not gonna stop me from seeing their movies though ;)

[VenomVsSpidey]

for those of you that mr sam jackson in IM2..sigin this so he can be in it!!

http://www.petitiononline.com/samnfury/petition.html

[powerbomb1411]

Wow, an internet petition. That's going to accomplish a lot.

[SuperKoala]

no it's not

[VenomVsSpidey]

no it's not

well then start your own.

[Brian Braddock]

I think the point SuperKoala's making is that they generally are'nt worth the bother as they dont really work.

[VenomVsSpidey]

I think the point SuperKoala's making is that they generally are'nt worth the bother as they dont really work.

oh..well if thats the case..sorry superkola..i misinterpreted...

[Brian Braddock]

No worries :up: ;

You arent the 1st and certainly wont be the last to do so on here.................

[SuperKoala]

the mick is right

[The Major]

if they don't have Jackson, they shouldn't have an Ultimate Fury at all.
How so?

without Jackson they need to go the 616 route. I always hated Ultimate Fury anyway.
They need to keep continuity between the films. All they need to do is hire another black actor for Fury to accomplish this.

[Brian Braddock]

the mick is right

:huh:

[Ace of Knaves]

I think he is calling you Irish.

[Brian Braddock]

I thought that too;

Methinks SuperKoala needs a geography lesson, as well as a crash course in how to avoid making ethnic slurs.

[Ace of Knaves]

:hehe: Indeed.

[SuperKoala]

I'm just really immature

[Brian Braddock]

Uh-huh.

;)

[SuperKoala]

please dont wink at me

[Brian Braddock]

>sigh<

[powerbomb1411]

Wow, an internet petition. That's going to accomplish a lot.

Suppose I could have put in a sarcasm tag.

[WillardNation]

They need to keep continuity between the films. All they need to do is hire another black actor for Fury to accomplish this.

It was a 30 second clip after the credits. It doesn't affect the continuity at all. They don't even need to mention that scene at all, or if they do feel the need to mention it, it can very easily be written off. Jackson was an LMD or a subordinate saying he was Fury for security reasons or something. That's an easy easy fix.

[C. Lee]

the mick is right

You are hanging by a thread. One more crass comment and you are gone.

[AnorexicBatman]

I dare them to try and replace Gweneth Paltrow ...
The fans will be in uproar!
Fravreu is expendable... as the Stark's driver... not director...

[aka Kal el]

David = WIN. :word:

I honestly hope SLJ comes back I really respect his talent and work ethic but if not I think Delroy Lindo would also work!

[Chewy]

SLJ joins. 9 pic deal.

Samuel L. Jackson is Marvel's man.

The actor, who just weeks ago was seemingly on the outs with the studio over reprising his role as Nick Fury, agent of spy outfit S.H.I.E.L.D., has signed an unprecedented nine-picture deal to play the character in a series of Marvel movies.

The movies include "Iron Man 2," "Thor," "Captain America," "The Avengers" and its sequels.

Also on the table is the possibility of toplining a "S.H.I.E.L.D." movie, which is in development.

The actor is repped by ICM and Anonymous Content.

SOURCE (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i57845f198f95ed93c4667e6a026a4c6b)

[Chewy]

I knew people were flipping out over nothing

[Mister Sinister]

9 ****ing pictures!

This week it was revealed that: -

David Hayter might be writing the Metal Gear Solid movie after much speculation that he wouldn't
Michael Cera will be in the Arrested Development movie after much speculation that he wouldn't
Samuel L Jackson will be in nine Marvel movies after much speculation he wouldn't

It's been a good week.

[[A]]

now I know why I couldn't access the main site! everyone was reading about this! :hehe: haha good for Jackson!

[Sawyer]

Oh snap! 9 pictures...even with the four we have over the next few years, that still leaves five more movies!!!

[VenomVsSpidey]

Yes!!!!

[Carlo Comicus]

This is the "big surprise" i talked some days ago... :D

[[A]]

Mods! Update the title! Samuel L. Jackson IS Nick Fury

[Keyser Soze]

Well, if Samuel L Jackson was indeed making a power play with his comments, it certainly seems to have paid off! Nine pictures! That must be a pretty lucrative deal. Good for SLJ, he IS Nick Fury.

[[A]]

^ let me see.. $250,000 x 9.. :hehe:

[Threshold]

Holy crap! Nine pictures!? That's awesome!

[TheVileOne]

I knew people were flipping out over nothing
People here usually do especially where Marvel Studios is confirmed.

So let's see guys, how many people have they dropped the ball with? Let's see Terence Howard, check. And then Samuel L. Jackson. And then Emily Blunt.

Oops.

[[A]]

Some people here usually do especially where Marvel Studios is confirmed.Fixed.

[TheVileOne]

No, most people do.

My hater hit list is being composed as we speak.

[Raiden]

Very good news indeed! But Marvel doesn't have that many movies lined up yet. Maybe Marvel is leaving the door open for more sequels and spinoffs if the current crop become successful.

[terry78]

See, why do people doubt this? It's been established since the days of Pulp Fiction, that whoever ****s with Samuel L. Jackson gets a boot up their ass.

Marvel honchos: Well, you see, Sam...we don't feel that the amount you're asking for is feasible.

Sam: Watchoo say, mother****a?!!!

Marvel:Uh-uh-uh-uh...

Sam: Do you speak English?!

Avi Arad: Huh?

Sam: ENGLISH, MOTHER****ER...DO YOU SPEAK IT?! WHAT COUNTRY YOU SUPPOSED TO BE FROM?

Arad: Uh-uh-uh...

Sam: What kinda country is Uh? They speak English in Uh?

[TheVileOne]

It's funny how you threw Avi Arad in there.

[kedrell]

Mods might as well lock this thread now so we can continue in the Sam L. Jackson IS Nick Fury thread.

[terry78]

He may have resigned in practice, but his ass is still hanging around there.

[louiebling$]

how much u think they paying him for 9 pictures???

[FaT_tONle]

The B.A.M.F is BACK!!!!!! Was that so hard Marvel? I mean damn... most of the parts will probably be glorified cameos anyway. Glad they paid him though.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I hope the constant crying about Marvel will stop now...yeah right. Glad to see Jackson back but I still wouldn't have been crying if he weren't.

[TheVileOne]

The B.A.M.F is BACK!!!!!! Was that so hard Marvel? I mean damn... most of the parts will probably be glorified cameos anyway. Glad they paid him though.
Yet you still complained about it like not bringing him back would be the end of the marvel movie-verse.

[Mister J]

Let's keep the party going in the new thread.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=320146