View Single Post
Old 12-14-2010, 08:22 PM   #130
Bald to the Bone
ElMariachi's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,274
Default Re: No iron man 3 for jon favreau

Originally Posted by Doc Samson View Post
Because where there's smoke there's fire. There can't be this big of a coincidence, there's been multiple stories coming out of either studio interference to the point that the whole movie changes or reluctance to pay talent.

-Mickey Rourke was low-balled for IM2 and I believe he only took the part because he wanted to work with RDJ for many years, and finally had the opportunity to do so.

-Ed Norton/Louis Leterrir both had issues with Marvel insisting on cutting out parts of the script. I understand Marvel being a bit nervous with the movie being too slow again, but nothing I saw on the bonus scenes would have extended the movie that much further

-Terrence Howard was reportedly low-balled as well, and while some may think Cheadle is a better actor (which I do too) in this type of film, your acting pedigree isn't as important as your chemistry with the central character, and Howard had a heck of a lot more chemistry with RDJ.

-Now that I think of it, Samuel L. Jackson was low-balled too, at least initially, and for somebody that's supposed to be the thread that ties all this together, you would think Marvel wouldn't have played games with him for as long as they did

-And now this. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe Favreau just wanted to do his own thing, but at the same time, just look how enthusiastic he was about the whole universe at first. He wanted to executive produce Avengers for Pete's sake, you don't jump at that sort of opportunity if your not fully invested. Now all of a sudden, after IM2, where once again we hear reports of discontent with the director and principal actor over changes being made, mysteriously, he wants nothing to do with the franchise again?
What do you expect them to do? Highball these actors and directors? When you go to buy a car, do you buy the listed price right away? In the same way, should a film studio pay whatever is asked? You all forget that this is a business. They may have lowballed actors, but you don't know what the situation was in regards to the money. How do you know that SLJ didn't want big money for small roles like he had in IM2? How do you know that Norton didn't want huge money for a role that would most likely be 75% CGI? There are reports that he was and is a diva, yet nobody cares about that side of the story. Then you have Terrence Howard, who wanted a huge paycheck and be paid more/same as RDJ!

You bring up smoke and fire. But Marvel brought on Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Tommy Lee Jones, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Hugo Weaving, Stellan Skarsgard, Stanley Tucci, Mark Ruffalo, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, etc. to their movies. These are some of the best actors in the business are they not? Marvel apparently can bring these actors to their stable, yet it is being said that they are cheap. It doesn't add up does it? Even the lesser characters in Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Captain America are highly regarded actors and somewhat well known. A cheap studio would hire nobodies from the CW and cheap young actors like Fox is doing with that awful X-Men movie. If Marvel was as cheap as many of you claim, Cheadle would not be War Machine. The guy from the Old Spice ads would be. The movies would look like cheap crap with poor special effects (cough Wolverine cough), but instead all of their movies have been high quality in this department.

ElMariachi is offline   Reply With Quote