Guardians of the Galaxy Guardians of the Galaxy: General Discussion & Speculation Thread

[Quasimod0]

Ray Winstone for rocket raccoon

 

[Chewy]

If we were talking about an actor jumping from an episode of a TV show no one watched to a movie that was very loosely related 8 years later I guess people wouldn't notice. I think people are probably perceptive enough to notice the same actor is playing two different characters in the same franchise within six months of each other.

It'd be like casting the guy who played Darwin as Bishop in Days of Future Past. You could, and maybe some people wouldn't notice, but why the hell would you? There are dozens of actors who are actually right for the role that didn't just star in an adjacent film

 

[JP]

Or casting Cobie Smulders as Wasp.

 

[SuperSAINT]

I've been away this weekend and just catching up on the latest.

Thank god Gunn debunked the Variety news.

Did the tweet get deleted? I couldn't find it on Gunn's twitter when I looked for it.

 

[cherokeesam]

If we were talking about an actor jumping from an episode of a TV show no one watched to a movie that was very loosely related 8 years later I guess people wouldn't notice. I think people are probably perceptive enough to notice the same actor is playing two different characters in the same franchise within six months of each other.

I think you're overestimating the perception of your average moviegoer to spot casting snafus involving extremely minor cameos like Fandral. And you're definitely overestimating their ability to even notice that the dark-headed clean-shaven guy from "Chuck" was also that blond-headed Errol Flynn looking guy with the goatee in Thor's entourage --- what was his name again, Vandal or something...?

It'd be like casting the guy who played Darwin as Bishop in Days of Future Past. You could, and maybe some people wouldn't notice, but why the hell would you? There are dozens of actors who are actually right for the role that didn't just star in an adjacent film

Marvel Studios handles talent in entirely different ways than the way Hollywood is used to. They require long-term contracts that aren't historically lucrative or equitable. Those that actually speak up about unfair pay have all found quick exits from the MCU.

In short, Marvel is in the business of looking for low-marquee value actors who are willing to get in on the ground floor of potentially lucrative franchises, and who are willing to keep the same pay grade regardless of whether or not the franchise becomes a runaway hit. That means that the job pool for Marvel Studios movies is limited to TV stars and overseas imports looking for a breakout film role in Hollywood, to has-beens who've seen better days, and to Marvel insiders with comic-book geek cred.

As someone mentioned above, it's almost inevitable that Marvel is going to have to wind up "double-dipping" into a manpower pool that small.

 

[JP]

Maybe so, but that was before Disney.

 

[Crimson King]

I think you're overestimating the perception of your average moviegoer to spot casting snafus involving extremely minor cameos like Fandral. And you're definitely overestimating their ability to even notice that the dark-headed clean-shaven guy from "Chuck" was also that blond-headed Errol Flynn looking guy with the goatee in Thor's entourage --- what was his name again, Vandal or something...?



Marvel Studios handles talent in entirely different ways than the way Hollywood is used to. They require long-term contracts that aren't historically lucrative or equitable. Those that actually speak up about unfair pay have all found quick exits from the MCU.

In short, Marvel is in the business of looking for low-marquee value actors who are willing to get in on the ground floor of potentially lucrative franchises, and who are willing to keep the same pay grade regardless of whether or not the franchise becomes a runaway hit. That means that the job pool for Marvel Studios movies is limited to TV stars and overseas imports looking for a breakout film role in Hollywood, to has-beens who've seen better days, and to Marvel insiders with comic-book geek cred.

As someone mentioned above, it's almost inevitable that Marvel is going to have to wind up "double-dipping" into a manpower pool that small.

RDJ's 50-million payday for Avengers begs to differ. And what makes you say they're after low-marquee names when they're getting Johannson, Ruffalo, RDJ, Norton, etc.? I think they have a nice mix of established and new talent. If it were as bad as you make it sound, they wouldn't have the casts they do for TDW and IM3.

 

[Chewy]

If you don't think Evans and Hemsworth and Ruffalo are getting raises I don't really know what to tell you.

Also 95% of actors would literally kill for a 6 picture, 6 figure per deal as a lead in a big international franchise. Whether these actors got their start in indies, foreign cinema, television, smaller roles, whatever. I promise you that "manpower pool" or whatever we're calling it is not anywhere near small. Hollywood isn't hurting for talented 20-something actors looking for their breakout.

 

[KangConquers]

If you don't think Evans and Hemsworth and Ruffalo are getting raises I don't really know what to tell you.

Also 95% of actors would literally kill for a 6 picture, 6 figure per deal as a lead in a big international franchise. Whether these actors got their start in indies, foreign cinema, television, smaller roles, whatever. I promise you that "manpower pool" or whatever we're calling it is not anywhere near small. Hollywood isn't hurting for talented 20-something actors looking for their breakout.

Evans is supposedly getting $8 M for Cap 2. That's quite a bit of a raise from his initial $300k.

 

[Chewy]

Yep, and RDJ got $10M for IM2. Hems got a raise too, but still wasn't happy with it and has since changed management in preparation for his Avengers 2 salary negotiations.

It's really no different than any other startup franchise at any studio - the Twilight kids got peanuts at first and got huge paydays after their franchise exploded, Shia made less that a mil for Transformers and got a big bump for the sequels, etc.

The only real difference in how Marvel has operated thus far is the number of pics they ask their actors to sign for.

 

[cherokeesam]

If you don't think Evans and Hemsworth and Ruffalo are getting raises I don't really know what to tell you.

Also 95% of actors would literally kill for a 6 picture, 6 figure per deal as a lead in a big international franchise. Whether these actors got their start in indies, foreign cinema, television, smaller roles, whatever. I promise you that "manpower pool" or whatever we're calling it is not anywhere near small. Hollywood isn't hurting for talented 20-something actors looking for their breakout.

http://screenrant.com/robert-downey-jr-avengers-salary-50-million-niall-172173/

The Iron Man star is set to score a proverbial king’s ransom for the movie, much more than his co-stars, who will be getting significantly less. Marvel is famously known for “low balling “ talent when they’re negotiating deals for their superhero films – Mickey Rourke was offered just $250,000 for his role in Iron Man 2 - however, the studio does seem to be lavishing cash on Downey Jr. Following the success of Iron Man in 2008 (it banked $585 million worldwide); the actor’s agents renegotiated his deal so that he would receive profit participation in any future movies where he played Iron Man - allegedly 5 to 7 percent of the box office gross. It must have seemed like a sweet deal then but even sweeter now when the grosses are doubled.

The rest of the cast aren’t so lucky. Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson are said to be scoring an estimated $4 – 6 million apiece – once their upfront fee and box office bonus is combined. It’s still a lot of cash, but nothing compared to that of Robert Downey Jr. Meanwhile, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, Jeremy Renner and Mark Ruffalo will probably bank around $2 – 3 million each for their work on The Avengers. Again this is serious money – but not much when you take into account the billions of dollars the film will make once other ancillaries are added.

 

[Chewy]

All that I get out of that is that they all got significant raises from their previous appearances. And they will again.

Which is the opposite of what you were saying.

Prove you're worth it and you'll get paid. Don't know how this differs from, well, anything.

 

[jaqua99]

All that I get out of that is that they all got significant raises from their previous appearances. And they will again.

Which is the opposite of what you were saying.

Prove you're worth it and you'll get paid. Don't know how this differs from, well, anything.

Exactly. Like my highschool track team, prove you are good enough, and you will run varsity.

Proove you are a great player, and you will have a high salary

 

[Chewy]

Haha, yep.

When the actors were locked in to Avengers RDJ was the only one with any leverage over Marvel. (ScarJo and SLJ too, to a much, much lesser extent, just for being well known actors.) Cap and Thor hadn't been released, for all anyone knew Thor and Cap and Avengers would all be big embarrassing disappointments. Yet Hems and Evans still got very reasonable salary bumps from their solos to Avengers, and Renner and Ruffalo made out just fine, too.

Now they all have a ton of leverage, they've been in some big hits and they're a huge part of the reason that the films were so popular. You're kidding yourself if you think they aren't about to all make out like bandits.

That's franchise filmmaking.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

You must have imagined that premise on your own. At no point did I say it would be more likely out of necessity. It's about casting whoever is best for the role and not worrying about whether they've already played some minor part in a separate barely connected film/TV series. The longer it goes on the more likely it'll be that that's happened.

The longer it goes on? Im sorry, but given the large and constantly growing talent pool, any rise in likelihood is negligible. Marvel will never have a compelling reason to use the same actor twice in the MCU unless it's a voice actor. Now Marvel may still elect to do so, but it won't be because it became "more likely" due to the growing number of MCU projects or a supposed "limited" talent pool (?!?!). As i said, the MCU is a drop in the bucket, and will continue to be a drop in the bucket by the end of Phase 3. Your entire statement is a non sequitur based on multiple false premises.

and there is more than one actor that's "best" for any particular role. even RDJ will be replaced one day, and hopefully the new actor will create a different and interesting Tony Stark.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Marvel Studios handles talent in entirely different ways than the way Hollywood is used to. They require long-term contracts that aren't historically lucrative or equitable. Those that actually speak up about unfair pay have all found quick exits from the MCU.

you do realize that from the 3 actors that got replaced in the MCU one was replaced because of scheduling conflicts, one because of creative control issues and only one, namely Terrence Howards, because of money. And that actor got more pay as a minor character in his movie than the lead actor and wanted even more. I doubt this qualifies as unfair pay.

 

[JP]

And look at his career now. Oops.

 

[cherokeesam]

All that I get out of that is that they all got significant raises from their previous appearances. And they will again.

Which is the opposite of what you were saying.

Prove you're worth it and you'll get paid. Don't know how this differs from, well, anything.

What I get out of that article is what it implies from the get-go --- that Marvel Studios still hasn't progressed from the "Iron Man 'n' Friends" stage of the MCU. RDJ is still their franchise flagship player, and their willingness to continue to throw obscene amounts of money at him while shortchanging everyone else (supporting cast notwithstanding; and so far, even Fury and Widow are nothing more than just that --- supporting cast) means that it's getting increasingly difficult for MS to find and keep good talent for their leads and their directors.

*That's* why we get names like Zachary Levi and Jim Sturgess as finalists for roles like Star-Lord, as opposed to, you know, somebody we can all get excited about.

 

[Chewy]

Ok, I see nothing but nonsense in your post. I'd love for you to name another film where 7 or more actors bagged 2M+. Shortchanged, lol

We didn't get names like Levi and Sturgess as finalists for Star Lord. Variety was wrong.

Merry Christmas.

 

[SuperSAINT]

C'mon Cherokee & Chewy.

Kiss & make-up -- It's christmas

 

[Joeyjojo72]

yeah its a minor point anyway (chewy's right tho :b) . tis the sason and all...

 

[Chewy]

I said merry christmas, what'ya want from me

 

[cherokeesam]

I said merry christmas, what'ya want from me

Some good goddamn casting news for this movie, that's what.

C'mon, Marvel, we've been good all freakin' year....throw us a bone on GOTG.

 

[marvel_freshman]

I'm assuming Gunn is referring to the headline, rather than the article:

 

[phlac]

I'm assuming Gunn is referring to the headline, rather than the article:

Yesss!!! I'm 1000% behind casting Zac as Quill