10 People Marvel Studios Really Ticked Off

[Orba]

I'm shocked

Its not exactly something new, studios do it all the time. They get one decent actor attached then use their presence when they try to sell the film to other actors.

 

[Tony Stark]

If I remember Howard was paid a good bit more than anyone else for the first film. I believe that he was the first name to sign for the film so he got a better deal, then the studio used him signing to get other actors to be more open to signing on.

Yes he was the first on the project but even before Favreau. IM hit a bump in production mostly because Marvel was trying to get the financing together for the film. This was the first one they were doing themselves.

I hadn't heard that Howard was used to get the other actors on, I could maybe see that for RDJ and GP. Jeff Bridges only signed because RDJ and Paltrow had signed. He said he had never signed onto a picture before that didn't have a script, but wanted to work with both of them so he made an exception.

The big thing is that Favreau did not want to use Howard. Feige and Arad were having a power struggle and Avi dug his heels in on that one. Favreau wanted Cheadle but it didn't work out. Feige didn't hesitate to fire Howard because Avi had already been forced out of MS and he was full time at Sony to work on the Spider-man reboots. Howard lost his only ally and was fired, they didn't audition anyone else they gave the part to Cheadle who they wanted to begin with.

 

[drod1985]

The big thing is that Favreau did not want to use Howard. Feige and Arad were having a power struggle and Avi dug his heels in on that one. Favreau wanted Cheadle but it didn't work out. Feige didn't hesitate to fire Howard because Avi had already been forced out of MS and he was full time at Sony to work on the Spider-man reboots. Howard lost his only ally and was fired, they didn't audition anyone else they gave the part to Cheadle who they wanted to begin with.

WOW! I didn't know any of that. I much prefer Cheadle in the role, and we could've had better continuity between movies if it weren't for Arad. Thanks again, Avi. :-/

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Some of them are a real missed opportunity for me. Norton is one, but I cant blame Marvel for that one, he didnt help himself (though I think his beef about the TIH run time was right) and it was just better for both parties to go their seperate ways.

Whedon and Wright are both especially big missed opportunities. I know they got Whedon, but I dont think they let him of the leash enough with the Avengers movies. And thats why I find TA gets worse on repeat viewings and AOU had so many disappointing aspects to it. Neither are bad movies but with more freedom they may have been great. Wright is just a great director and so is a missed opportunity to me. Ant-Man might be good, but I will always feel we lost the better version of the movie when Wright left.

I too preferred Howard in the role of Rhodey, and really wish he had been kept, it wasnt his fault that deal was made where he got paid more than RDJ and Paltrow, and who in their right mind would turn it down?

Rourke I also understand, and I hope things work out with Portman and they write her character better in Thor 3.

 

[starscream22]

Yes the article is facutally wrong, which puts alot of it into question. Terrance was upset because he wasn't offered a raise where RDJ and Paltrow were offered huge raises. Again it's important to note that Favreau never wanted him, he wanted Cheadle, but because of Avi Arad, they had to take Howard.

Then it's more likely that they low balled for IM2 just as an excuse to remove him in the first place.

I still think he's a better Rhodey than Cheadle is but since I doubt I'll ever even support another Ironman sequel after the last one the issue is irrelevant.

 

[TalismanRing]

Weaving didn't have anything bad to say about Marvel or the movie. He just wasn't interested in making another big spectacle movie where he had to be in the make-up chair for 4 hours a day.

Favreau was still an Exec Producer on the IM 3 and the Avengers movies and acting in Iron Man 3 so how big could his issues be?

Did Taylor and Jenkins really think they were going to get creative control on a blockbuster when neither of them had even made a successful blockbuster before or even a medium sized budget film? You have to be of Speilberg, Nolan etc stature to get complete control of a film this size. You want complete control, make an Indie for $1m. Jenkins just got Wonder Woman because WB didn't want to give McLaren control and do her own ideas - so odds are Jenkins isn't getting it there either.

Howard, Roarke and Norton - Marvel isn't exactly the only studio to have problems with any of these guys. They have all at one time or another been labeled as "difficult" and that's putting it mildly.

Howard got paid something like 10 times more than RDJ for Iron Man. Obviously something was going to give for the 2nd movie. Favreau also is rumored to have not liked working with Howard, so couple that with Feige wanting Cheadle and Arad being gone and I think the salary issue was just another excuse to jettison him.

Mickey Roarke has a legitimate gripe about playing a paper thin character but he signed on for that script and his ideas and what was cut were even worse than what made it to the screen. His going on and on about it though as if i was soe mind of massive betrayal is one of the reasons he's not employed a lot.

Norton is reportedly as big a pain in the ass to deal with as he is talented - ergo very big. Wanting final cut and then when not getting it initially refusing to promote the film then finally promoting it sparingly pretty much put a nail in that coffin. If the film had been a huge hit - even a medium sized hit they might have put up with him, but it wasn't. Feige came right out and said he wanted a team player and one who would get on well with others in The Avengers - that's not Norton.

 

[Human Torch]

I probably won't be adding much new to the conversation,but,

Weaving just wasn't fond of the heavy prosthetics involved (which is odd,since he had to know what he was in for going in) but he did come across as very passive aggressive with his "I'd have to do another if they want me to, but I don't think they'd force me to...."


Portman is kind of a disappointment. I like her character, so it's a shame if she's on the outs with Marvel.

Rourke is kind of a wild card. TBH, between his outlandish input into his character,RDJ's emerging goldon boy persona and SLJ's performance as Fury being the most SLJ-esq of all Marvel films, it was easy to see that Favreau was having a problem keeping the inmates in line at the asylum. True, Rourke's character might've gotten the shaft a bit, but I doubt there was an oscar worthy, epic film left on the cutting room floor.

Norton was going to be very "hands on" in the creation process. Marvel had to know that going in. While, I still kinda prefer him to Ruffalo,it was a mistake to sign him in the first place. Judging by TIH cut scenes,Marvel made the right call in the cut they delivered.

Howard was also a victim of being a diva. I actually liked his more "brotherly" portrayal of Rhodey in IM 1, but Cheadle's "banter trading buddy" seems more accurate to the character and is an overall better fit with RDJ. I wish they had started with him.

Wright basically was given 50 years and a blank check by Marvel to produce his Ant Man film. He's no better than the other directors in this list that learned you have to play ball or go home.

 

[Tony Stark]

All you can say about Norton is he signed a one picture deal. Everyone else, and I mean EVERYONE ELSE, who was cast in a Marvel film signed a multi picture contract.

Marvel accepted the one picture deal, because they were trying to get off the ground and felt they needed a big name to get the Hulk moving forward.

Feige tried to get him to sign for Avengers, Ruffalo was their backup deal. They wanted Norton, they tried to get Norton. Rumor was it came down to money. Well Ruffalo has done pretty well in the role and Ed Norton hasn't really done much since, which is a shame because I think he's a great actor.

 

[MbJ]

Whedon and Wright are both especially big missed opportunities. I know they got Whedon, but I dont think they let him of the leash enough with the Avengers movies. And thats why I find TA gets worse on repeat viewings and AOU had so many disappointing aspects to it. Neither are bad movies but with more freedom they may have been great.

I felt AOU was a weird result of there somehow being both not enough leeway and too much leeway. Namely all the stuff to set up future movies was distracting and made for a very disjointed story, but some of the stuff I found very annoying also seemed like pure, iconic Whedon. Namely the lack of menace for the villain and the overuse of dumb quips and catchphrases ("You deedn't see zat coming?")

 

[Tony Stark]

*Let me amend that, Bridges, and Rourke probably didn't sign multi picture deals, but Downey, Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, Ruffalo, Renner, Pratt, Paltrow, Portman, Atwell, Stan, Saldana, etc., etc., etc. all signed multi picture deals.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I felt AOU was a weird result of there somehow being both not enough leeway and too much leeway. Namely all the stuff to set up future movies was distracting and made for a very disjointed story, but some of the stuff I found very annoying also seemed like pure, iconic Whedon. Namely the lack of menace for the villain and the overuse of dumb quips and catchphrases ("You deedn't see zat coming?")

There was plenty of menace in Loki and The Operative from Serenity. Ultron felt more like an MCU as often they lack menace and threat.

 

[hafizbat]

I felt AOU was a weird result of there somehow being both not enough leeway and too much leeway. Namely all the stuff to set up future movies was distracting and made for a very disjointed story, but some of the stuff I found very annoying also seemed like pure, iconic Whedon. Namely the lack of menace for the villain and the overuse of dumb quips and catchphrases ("You deedn't see zat coming?")

This is actually a very apt description of the movie. Whedon and Marvel were in perfect harmony for The Avengers, while the two didn't mesh as well for AoU. I think TA being a super simple movie compared to the more ambitious, flavorful AoU had something to do with it.

 

[Jason Kane]

With Arad, its justified. When you foist Venom onto Sam Raimi only to trigger his response in the forn of half-assing the character and miscast Topher Grace as Brock, you deserve what's coming to you for that and still trying to be relevant when that's passed since 2004.

Wright took too damn long and should've known right after Iron Man happened that his Ant Man wouldn't be the stand-alone film he was gunning for. His reponse? Goes and makes Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim, The World's End, etc. He was the sole reason why Hank and Jan fans were (and still are) ticked off at him for robbing the two from appearing in The Avengers. So, while I love the Cornetto Trilogy, Im glad he left Ant Man.

 

[Jason Kane]

Some of them are a real missed opportunity for me. Norton is one, but I cant blame Marvel for that one, he didnt help himself (though I think his beef about the TIH run time was right) and it was just better for both parties to go their seperate ways.

Whedon and Wright are both especially big missed opportunities. I know they got Whedon, but I dont think they let him of the leash enough with the Avengers movies. And thats why I find TA gets worse on repeat viewings and AOU had so many disappointing aspects to it. Neither are bad movies but with more freedom they may have been great. Wright is just a great director and so is a missed opportunity to me. Ant-Man might be good, but I will always feel we lost the better version of the movie when Wright left.

I too preferred Howard in the role of Rhodey, and really wish he had been kept, it wasnt his fault that deal was made where he got paid more than RDJ and Paltrow, and who in their right mind would turn it down?

Rourke I also understand, and I hope things work out with Portman and they write her character better in Thor 3.

If Wright didn't drag his feet the entire time, I'd agree with you. But as it stands, its Kevin Smith's Spider-Man mini all over again on a cinematic standpoint

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I don't see how some people got the idea that Marvel "really ticked off" Patty Jenkins. Their split was amicable and she had nothing but good things to say about them.

 

[TheVileOne]

I maintain that casting Elba as Heimdall was bad casting and IMHO a waste of Elba's talents.

 

[Daltonio]

#TeamAvi

 

[metaphysician]

I think its impossible to truly judge the Edgar Wright matter without knowing exactly what the disagreements were. That said, dude was given years to make his movie. I have little sympathy.

 

[Boom]

The whole Kevin Feige/Avi Arad business with the new Spider-Man reboot pleases me ever so greatly.

 

[Farren]

All you can say about Norton is he signed a one picture deal. Everyone else, and I mean EVERYONE ELSE, who was cast in a Marvel film signed a multi picture contract.

Marvel accepted the one picture deal, because they were trying to get off the ground and felt they needed a big name to get the Hulk moving forward.

Feige tried to get him to sign for Avengers, Ruffalo was their backup deal. They wanted Norton, they tried to get Norton. Rumor was it came down to money. Well Ruffalo has done pretty well in the role and Ed Norton hasn't really done much since, which is a shame because I think he's a great actor.

That surprises me to hear. I'd always just assumed Marvel didn't want Norton back because he's known for wanting to make changes in the productions he's involved in -- something I could see Marvel wanting to avoid going forward with an established "house style" and continuity in the MCU.

 

[Jason Kane]

The whole Kevin Feige/Avi Arad business with the new Spider-Man reboot pleases me ever so greatly.

Meanwhile, at Arad's...

Arad: Damn you, Feige!!!! *sobs and eats bonbons in his bathtub listening to Dido*

 

[Flint Marko]

The whole Kevin Feige/Avi Arad business with the new Spider-Man reboot pleases me ever so greatly.

Agreed.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm sure Marvel pisses people off. I don't know if they're worse than the rest of Hollywood.

 

[hafizbat]

I maintain that casting Elba as Heimdall was bad casting and IMHO a waste of Elba's talents.

It may be a waste, but he's still awesome in the role. The only problem is that Heimdall is just a side character.

 

[Slushy]

I was pissed off about Hulk getting re-casted, but Norton screwed Norton. He should've played his cards right and promoted the movie like he was supposed to. The movie would've done better at the box office and Marvel might've been kind enough to release an extended version of it with all those nice scenes put back in as well as Norton being in The Avengers. You want to see the real Edward Norton? Watch his performance in Birdman. That's him to a tee according to Hollywood dirt sheets.

Louis Leterrier revealing in an interview that Mark Ruffalo was his original choice for Bruce Banner also quelled my anger.

What happened with Hugo Weaving?

The vibe I got from his interview is that he's an elitist actor, whose too good for comic book movies in general, and did Captain America as a one time deal and would prefer it to be that way.