Iron Man 2 Samuel L. Jackson May No Longer Be Nick Fury!

Status
Not open for further replies.
LA Times said:
Samuel L. Jackson, clearly bristling, said today that negotiations to put him in the role of Nick Fury have broken down because "there seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world."

Jackson told me today that despite his cameo as the hard-bitten military man at the end of "Iron Man," it now appears that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it" when it comes to "Iron Man 2," "The First Avenger: Captain America" and "The Avengers," the announced slate of Marvel Studios projects through 2011 that might have a natural spot for the character.

Jackson, who is a fanboy favorite after roles in three "Star Wars" films, "The Incredibles" and "Unbreakable," was actually used as the model for the Ultimate Marvel version of Fury, which took the white, grizzled, aging commando with salt-and-pepper hair and re-imagined him as a younger, bald African American. There were cheers in theaters at the end of "Iron Man," when Jackson appeared as Fury, but when I asked the actor about it today he shook his head.

"I saw ['Iron Man' and 'Iron Man 2' director] Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Jackson might just have been taking a public position that could lead to a bigger payday (it certainly wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood star used an interview as a negotiating tactic) but he seemed especially sour on the whole the topic of working with Marvel ...

"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"

I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.

Marvel Studios only has two films under its belt, "Iron Man" (which finished as the second-highest grossing film of 2008) and "The Incredible Hulk" but executives with the Hollywood upstart have high hopes for creating a new model of unified, character-crossover films that would mirror the spirit of the Marvel Comics in the 1960s, when heroes and villains collided constantly in the various comics titles and firmed up the concept of "the Marvel Universe." One challenge to that will be keeping a good number of movie stars happy with the roles and their paychecks.

Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast, won't be back for the sequel (Don Cheadle is taking his place as the key supporting character Rhodey and his alter ego War Machine) money may have been part of the issue as Marvel execs have to weigh each film's budget with the calculating eye of pro-sports teams who want marquee players but have to fit them into a salary cap. A publicly traded company, Marvel has a publicly stated goal of keeping shareholders happy with a rigid allegiance to the bottom line.

Marvel's stock has held up far better than shares of most of its larger rivals over the last year. Helped by the lift from "Iron Man" in spring, Marvel Entertainment shares actually rose for the year, gaining 15% to close 2008 at $30.75. That was an amazing feat, considering that more than 90% of all U.S. stocks fell last year. By contrast, Walt Disney shares slid 30% in 2008, Viacom Inc. plunged 57% and Time Warner fell 39%. So far this year, Marvel is down 5.5%, Disney is down 6.6%, Viacom is off 8.1% and Time Warner is down 2.5%.

Think of the challenge to Marvel to put its crossover dream on the screen: For "The Avengers," that means putting Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, Edward Norton as Hulk, Cheadle, whoever plays Thor and whoever plays Captain America all in the same movie. How much room (and money) would be left for a supporting character like Jackson as Fury? Still, like I told the actor, he has a big advantage on his side: Who else wants to wear that patch, especially since the character is based on Jackson? Jackson laughed. "Maybe nobody will wear it. Maybe they'll decide Nick Fury won't be part of it."

Let's hope that this is just a media ploy by Jackson, similar to when Favreau went public about his negotiations. Marvel clearly still wants him involved; he still wants to be involved. Hopefully they can make those ends meet.
 
Are you ****ing kidding me? So now SLJ is being anal about a paycut??? The same guy that worked for three films with Lucas of all people on Star Wars prequels... the guy obviously has a passion for this fanboy stuff. And now Marvel appears to be d***ing him over... I love how some people here still give Marvel the benefit of the doubt because of the success of IM... expect recasting to be a yearly occurence. At this rate we'll get over all the recasting in about a year with the way Marvel is dishing out the bills... unreal...
 
Think somebody saw The Spirit? Ah, I kid, I kid. :oldrazz:

If Marvel Studios is considering someone else, maybe the fans who called for a traditional Fury will get what they want for the sequel.
 
Okay so... they probably lost Norton for Avengers, replaced Terrance Howard, and now may replace Samuel. ...Fantastic Marvel.

Such a shame too, they were off to such a good start.
 
I think this gets worked out. I haven't seen anything lending itself to Fury's role being anything substantial and I have a hard time seeing this thing fall apart over a glorified cameo. Even if it goes bad, I wouldn't care if they switched it up to 616 Fury. Not really a big deal, especially compared to the Rhodey business.

Speaking of...
Terrence Howard, who by some reports was the first actor signed to "Iron Man" and the highest-paid actor in the cast
Really? :confused:
 
Marvel is losing credibility. If they can't handle negotiations properly, at this rate, they're gonna loose all their assets. They're just things you can't get away with and you being cheap is one of those.

Well, in case Jackson doesn't come back, I suggest Michael Jai White.

tvdmjai5.jpg
 
If Marvel made IM and TIH in full CGI a la Final Fantasy, there wouldn't be such a problem and the characters would look like the comic books counterpart.
But, anyway, I don't care for Iron Man II.
I gave up on sequels.
When a movie has in the title numbers, subtitles and anything other than the name of the franchise, it loses importance and it won't sound like THE movie of that franchise.
 
I read about it this morning--man this suck :cmad: I'll say, forget about Rockwell, keep Jackson (not that I don't like Sam Rockwell but you gotta have Jackson/Fury, man)
 
If Marvel made IM and TIH in full CGI a la Final Fantasy, there wouldn't be such a problem and the characters would look like the comic books counterpart.
But, anyway, I don't care for Iron Man II.
I gave up on sequels.
When a movie has in the title numbers, subtitles and anything other than the name of the franchise, it loses importance and it won't sound like THE movie of that franchise.

So you gave up on TDK yea? :whatever:
 
I think this gets worked out. I haven't seen anything lending itself to Fury's role being anything substantial and I have a hard time seeing this thing fall apart over a glorified cameo. Even if it goes bad, I wouldn't care if they switched it up to 616 Fury. Not really a big deal, especially compared to the Rhodey business.

Speaking of...

Really? :confused:

Yeah, Howard was cast by Avi Arad even before Favs had been hired.
 
Yeah you'd figure people would be talking about 616 Fury... give me a break... so the cameo was a complete throw away now? I concur with the other poster... bring in Michael Jai White... or bring in Denzel. Nothing wrong with getting an even bigger name in there. I could see him doing it for Avengers if it's a small role. The fact is... people are getting tired of SLJ showing up in everything these days... and he isn't getting any younger. Hell I am all for keeping the same cast throughout... but since Marvel can't pay the bills... might as well replace everybody. Tom Cruise for Stark still on the table?
 
If Denzel plays Fury, RDJ will be in suit the entire movie, with the mask and everything. You know.. because Denzel spits a lot
 
Honestly, what the **** are Marvel doing? Are they just going to keep re-casting character until they are finalyl happy a few movies in? This is ridiculous, sort it out Marvel, this is becoming a joke.
 
If they must recast, he still has to be black. None of this race change stuff.

:oldrazz:
 
easy guys. until i dont see any bad news about RDJ everything its OK. when RDJ is out then i am out. and belive me we will do some negative promotion.
 
yeah this is bad news for marvel. i have a feeling if this kind of crap keeps up they may be no avengers movie at all ! :cmad:
 
How about firing Cheadle as well and let RDJ play Tony, Rhodey and Nick Fury, kinda like Eddie Murphy does in all of his movies.

That would save Marvel some money.

Or bring in the Hoff.
 
What's everyone over-reacting for? So far Marvel have had to re-cast one role, and this thing about Sam isn't confirmed yet. The negotiations are still "active" as the article says. You silly, silly fan boys. :hehe:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"