Iron Man 2 loses yet another cast member…
Thursday, February 19th, 2009
Okay, this is getting ridiculous…After losing Terrance Howard, (most likely) Samuel L. Jackson and Emily Blunt, Marvel’s nearly-infamous road to making Iron Man 2 just got a little bumpier and more depressing. Mickey Rourke, who was being courted by Marvel to play an unknown villain in the sequel, recently told New York Magazine that he probably won’t be doing a sequel, allegedly due to the low paycheck he was offered, despite his recent Oscar nomination (and let’s face it, probable victory) and the fact that his career is at an all-time hot.
“Right now, we’re not doing Iron Man 2” Rourke told New York Magazine
Are actors really greedy or is Marvel really cheap? Who will be next in the musical chair game that is Iron Man 2? Will Gwenyth Paltrow be replaced next? Will Paul Bettany turn down the role of Jarvis after learning his pay would consist of 10 dollars, a sandwich and a free Iron Man 2 t-shirt? Hopefully not, but at this point, who knows?
Gallery of Images
Posted By:
40 Comments
Subscribe to Comments FeedLeave a Reply
Book of the Month
Y The Last Man Vol. 5In this final Deluxe Edition hardcover collecting Y #49-60, Yorick and Agent 355 prepare for their ultimate quest to reunite the last man with his lost love, while the person, people or thing behind the disaster that wiped out half of humanity is revealed. Then, Yorick Brown's long journey through an Earth populated only by women comes to its dramatic, unexpected conclusion.
I’ve got a British accent, I’d do Jarvis for $10, a sandwiche and an Iron Man 2 t-shirt
Oh you are HIRED my friend
I’ll say it- I’m sorry Mickey Rourke- but what else you got going on? Wrestler was a good come back- but still? Dude- takes what you gets when you gets it.
IMDB brother, check it out, it’ll say what he’s doing
So the answer? He’s doing “13″. That’s it. Everything else is in pre-production. Including Iron Man 2, and the long fabled “Sin City 2″.
So I’m with Sunshineyness on this one.
Good, dont get me wrong I loved him in sin city, and he was great in the wrestler… I even liked him in Domino, but im happy he’s not in it.
Ugh these actors need to take a step down off their high horse and realise that they have a good movie going on in their careers. It shouldn’t always be about the money. Do a few small roles and the bigger roles will come in. Not that Iron Man is a small film so I don’t see where the problem is. This film will get them recognised for other films in the future. :)
Nope. Mickey Rourke has much better things going on than dressing in a bondage outfit to play a third string villian in a movie about iron men.
If they want to attract first class talent to their film-by-committe-summer-tentpole then they can pay them millions of dollars to compensate them for their valuable time. Otherwise they can fuck off.
Mickey’s got much more interesting projects in the works.
But Prettz and I have something in common. I’m also glad Mickey won’t be slumming with Jon Favre while there are better directors out there who want to work with him. Rourke’s had one of the more interesting careers in hollywood and it would be great if he parlayed his upcoming oscar win into something more substantial.
As if Iron Man is doing Mickey Rourke a favor! Ridiculous.
These movies with several solid actors, rather than one huge name with lots of smaller names really tickles my fancy. If Rourke or Jackson are too good for that sort of thing, that’s more than fine with me. There are plenty of other options out there that can fill those spots.
He can go work his ass off for a starring role for starring role bucks, or he can take on a supporting role for supporting role bucks. Either way, I don’t really care. If it happens, great. If it doesn’t, fine.
Neither of those actors complained about being in an ensemble. Look at the cast of the Expendables.
They may not have complained about being in an ensemble. But at least in Jackson’s case, he was complaining about his paycheck. Which, again, if you are in a project like this, you can expect less pay for less work, and a smaller role. *shrug* I don’t care enough about either actor to mind either way.
Randy, I think we can safely say that SLJ does not have a problem appearing in small or supporting roles.
Clearly, both actors have decided that in this particular case this specific role they were being offered was not worth it for the money they were being offered. Anything else we’d like to infer is pure conjecture.
there is no need for anyone to get off of any horses; high or otherwise.
Small Roles can still net you a big paycheck. Ensemble casts generally need to move past that bit.
Mostly, with SLJ, I’m annoyed at two things. Neither of which involves a horse.
1> If you don’t want to take the role, don’t take it. Don’t make some public spectacle out of the fact that you think they are being cheap. To me, this seems like a ploy to play the fans against the movie in order to get a bigger paycheck. It really didn’t seem like he was saying “No Thank You” as much as “Guys, back me up here, I need more money!”
2> Why the hell would they bring him on with the intent to continue using him without some sort of contract? At the very least, tie him into making more cameos. Just about every major actor in these movies is tied to an X picture deal, where they have to make so many movies. Why not extend that to some of the smaller roles. I can only assume that it has something to do with cameo vs small role. But still, there should have been something Marvel could do to ensure this situation doesn’t come up after they’ve tied him into the story.
1 of these is bad on SLJ, 1 is bad on Marvel. Mistakes all around.
To be fair, I wasnt glad because I think Rourke is better than Iron man, I was glad because I couldnt picture him in it.
Um, I wouldn’t call working with Favreau “slumming it.” Iron Man was one of the best films of 2008 and a lot of that is becuase it was directed so well.
Right now, the only major film he’s comitted to is The Expendables, which sounds awesome.
@Sunshineyness and Paul- I think what a lot of people don’t realize that actors (even big names like Rourke or Howard) sometimes only star in one, maybe two films per year. That’s like a chef only making one meal a year. You want to make sure that one gig you get pays well enough to last you and your family the whole year. They don’t all live in gigantic mansions.
Do you feel that Jeff Bridges advanced his career by appearing in it? I didn’t think the Iron Man picture was much to write home about but that wasn’t really my point. What does Rourke get out of this project other than a pay check?
You say he doesn’t have anything “major” except for Expendables but I’m really looking forward to Broken Horses. I hope he does more films like that.
There’s a percpetion that big summer films are good for actors because they’re high profile. But the actors are often beside the point in those movies and if you do too many your in danger of becoming forgetable.
Mickey is great is weird quirky roles where you can’t imagine anyone else playing the role after he’s done with it. It’s unfortunate he didn’t end up playing Stunt Man Mike. That wouldve been great.
Exposure is often better for actors than sitting around waiting for the next “big paycheck”. Hollywood forgets about you REALLY fast. You may have been the last “big thing”, but if you aren’t at least in the picture, you may not get back to that point anytime in the future.
I can’t say if this movie would help his career or not. But I think the point was, “It’s better than nothing.”
It might be better than nothing but Rourke has been acting steadily for 30 years (except for when he voluntarily retired to pursue boxing) and he’s about to win an oscar. I don’t think he has to worry about “nothing”.
He has no reason to do this iron man film other than a huge pay check.
Iron Man 2 would be good for his career becuase its a sequel to one of the best adventure movies of the decade, is being directed by one of the fastest-growing directorial talents in the industry and Rourke would be acting alongside Robert Downey Jr., Sam Rockwell and Gwenyth Paltorw; some of the most interesting and talented actors of their generation.
Just becuase its not a black and white, experimental art house opus about the holocuast doesn’t mmake it irrelevant Rusty.
@ its a sequel to one of the best adventure movies of the decade, is being directed by one of the fastest-growing directorial talents in the industry
whoa. Wasn’t expecting you to go there… Favre? That’s a stretch.
And thank you for reminding me that Gwen Paltrow is in Iron Man because there is no more obvious evidence that these films can be a death rattle for a once promising career.
Compare her to the other actresses who get stuck in the superhero girl friend role. Kate Bosworth, Kristin Dunst, Katie Holmes. How are they doing these days? These roles are a wasteland. And there’s a word for some one at Paltrow’s point career taking it… slumming. Hollywood is getting ready to throw her to the wolves for her upcoming 40th birthday.
The cast for Iron Man is not bad but not that impressive. Give a look through his filmography. Sin City, One Upon A Time In Mexico, Rumble Fish, the upcoming Expendables. Those are impressive casts.
And Broken Horses is a much more exciting film. An acclaimed Indian filmmaker mostly unknown filmmaker. Doing an American gangster film! That is a one of a kind project.
And anyone who knows me knows I would be the first person to complain if Mickey were in a holocaust prestige picture. That’s reductio ad absurdum.
@Kate Bosworth, Kirsten Dunst, Katie Holmes:
I think it’s a stretch to even vaguely link their superhero roles to the death of their acting careers. First of all, Katie Holmes should immediately be thrown out of the mix, because she purposefully took her name out of contention for roles because she has a kid and she’s riding the crazy train with Tom.
But even beyond that, they aren’t exactly the most talented set of actresses you will ever see. Once Kirsten Dunst grew up and got her cracked out look going, her career began to fade.
Gweneth Paltrow was running 1-2 movies a year up until Iron Man. Now she has 4 movies in 3 years. Seems to be about par for her.
Kate Bosworth? Well, I don’t even care enough about her to look her up, so who knows if you are right. But I don’t care if it’s Superman or an Oscar award winning movie….if she turns in a Louis Lane performance like that in any other movie, she’s in the same position she is in now.
But, heaven forbid we actually look at it objectively. James Franco seems to be recovering well from those evil super hero movies. Alfred Molina hasn’t had a shortage of work since Spider-Man 2. Tim Roth, Jennifer Connelly, etc. They are all doing just fine. If you want to say that these movies will suicide your career, fine. But any movie in which you give a bad performance can do that. It’s not always the actor/actresses’ fault. But they need to be cautious when reading these scripts. Any script. Superheroes or not.
You are far too critical of movies like these. I’m with TNN on this one (That’s like twice this month!) The movies will be good for your career if you do a good job on them. They put your face out there. Hell, I didn’t even know who Anna Paquin or Ellen Page were before X-Men. Granted, they had their roles before those movies. And at least in Page’s case, one of those movies was a critical success (Hard Candy). But they’ve had some great roles post X-Men, and those movies did a great job getting their faces out there.
Rourke doesn’t need to become known, but mega-successful movies can serve as a reminder that they are still around for the people that only watch the blockbuster movies. But like I said, I’m good either way. But I don’t think you can dismiss the merits of doing a movie like this. Then again, I also don’t think it will be the second coming for them to take the role either.
Yer missing me here Randy. I’m don’t think staring in blockbusters kills your career. I think that there are very few good roles in those types of movies. And they don’t help your career they way people often assume. Getting good notices in a smaller part is much better for your career than appearing in $200 million effects driven blockbuster.
That’s why established actors are offered dump trucks of money to appear in the blockbusters but take pay cuts for the indie movies. Since they don’t want to offer him the money truck I don’t see why he should take the part. Certaintly not for his benefit.
And I don’t see how it’s even debatable that Paltrow’s career is in decline. She used to star in high profile award season movies that she won oscars for. Now she plays THE GIRLFRIEND in a movie that opens in January. Not because she was in Iron Man, but Iron Man is an example of a role she wouldn’t have taken 3 years ago.
Paltrow’s career is slumming? Clearly someone hasn’t seen the trailer for Two Lovers. And besides the fact that they’ve all been in superhero movies, Paltrow doesn’t even belong in the same league as Kirsten Dunst and Kate Bosworth.
According to your logic Rusty, Heath Ledger shouldn’t have done a “film-by-committe-summer-tentpole” picture called The Dark Knight
@ Paltrow doesn’t even belong in the same league as Kirsten Dunst and Kate Bosworth.
It’s annoying that you re-iterate my point so concisely and then still to manage to miss it. She doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in their league, she’s more talented, more established and more than 10 years their senior; and yet here she is accepting the same role as Boring Girlfriend (that probably wasn’t the character’s name but I’m not going to look it up.)
You are correct, I do not know about that film Two Lovers. so maybe I’ve greatly exagerated the rumors of her demise. But I did glance through her recent filmography of films that have come out and she is not a high profile actress the way she was four or five years ago.
Even Two Lovers is a Joaquin Pheonix movie with her in a supporting role (based on the plot synopsis I read, maybe it’s wrong). And according to the page where I saw the trailer this film came out already! And it got dumped in January! I don’t really know about the movie so maybe I’m missing something.
But anyways my point was about Mickey not Paltrow; and Heath Ledger in Dark Knight and Johnny Depp in Pirates and every other actor who has done fine work in these types of movies, all of that aside; appearing as Whiplash in Iron Man 2 for a low ball pay check is not a good career move for an actor of Mickey’s stature. Not when he can go star in Broken Horses where he’ll actually be appreciated.
…by 200,000 people. We all obviously have different measures of success. ;)
Ugh…
200,000 people. You say that as if it’s a bad thing. But let me ask you this, will you any of you appreciate him in Iron Man? You don’t seem to care one way another wether or not he’s in the movie. You just seem to take offense to him thinking he’s above this shitty movie. And make no mistake he’s above this shitty movie.
They could cast someone from Chuck and y’all would probably think it was better.
As a fan of Mick’s, I doubt Iron Man would be a good fit for him. If they don’t want to pay him appropriately they don’t deserve his time. The last thing the world needs is another great talent settling for mediocrity.
I think this arugment has hit a roadblock, simply becuase you seem to have this really bizzare, blind distaste for the Iron Man franchise, which to me is kinda like hating ice cream or Isla Fisher.
I’m also a fan of Rourke, been a fan of him for years. My dad used to let me watch Barfly when I was a kid. Basically, I agree with Randy. It doesnt matter whether he’s in some Sundanc-bred arthouse flick or Iron Man 2, what matters is how interesting and challenging the role is. And Rourke is an amzing actor and seeing him bring his off-kilter charisma to a summer tentpole picture would be awesome, maybe even as awesome as watching Robert Doweney Jr. play a superhero his way.
It doesn’t matter whether its a big summer action movie or a tiny indie movie, the equation still works:
Good Director + Intresting role + Great cast to work with = Why the hell not?
But again, I know this won’t convince you becuase you’ll never like Iron Man or its sequel, no matter what anyone says or what you see on the screen. And I feel bad for you man. I would hate to not like Iron Man
You’re over-stating my disregard for Iron Man.
But yer right it’s not important what genre a movie is, or what time of the year it comes out or what the budget is. What counts is the role, the director and the cast.
It’s baffling to me that that formula leads you to conclude he should play Whiplash in Iron Man II. Maybe if he’d be playing Fin Fang Foom I could get excited.
Actually, the rumor is that he’s playing Crimson Dynamo
I wrote a reply but it didn’t post. Maybe because it had the word “dildo” in it.
Honestly I would have seen Iron Man 2 anyway. With Rourke, it ranked it up to “must see” for me at least. I love Rourke and anything he’s in I’ll check out. And honestly being offered such a small amount of money is a pisser. but if that’s how Marvel is playing it then fuck em.
The idea of “He should just take it! I’d do fine on the money.” But the fact is this: if you are willing to take small money for big summer films, then you probably won’t get big money offers again (especially if you take small money when you are HOT right now). Hollywood through and through is a numbers game. Money isn’t just a money thing, it’s a status thing. Saying “Sure” to small money for a blockbuster that will make half a billion dollars make you look like a chump. And Rourke knows this. (How do I know? I live in Hollywood and have worked with actors, some who have worked in the biz a LONG LONG time). Honestly good for Rourke for telling Marvel where to stick it and doing so in public. It’s obvious that Marvel isn’t interested in paying people they just want the money that’ll come with it. That’s why they tried to low balled Faverau, they low balled Jackson, Rourke and “rumor” has it they’re trying to keep RDJ’s salary the same as it was from the first film (which has been reported as being quite small). So it seems like Marvel is being cheap more then anything. And I applaud Rourke for being able to say “no” because according to everyone else “Well what else does he have going on?!” good for your Mickey, enjoy that oscar on Sunday, and all those offers raining in on Monday.
Have you guys talked about the whole Stan Lee debacle going on? Who owns the rights (and the money)?
Well Rourke didn’t win the award, but at least I know he could win in a fight, against anyone…even God.
You must be thinking of Chuck Norris.
Nope. It’s Rourke, he’d Ram Jam God.
When did Rourke become so insainly popular? where was all this love before the wrestler came out?
Rourke has had sort of a cult following for a while now. He was once one a genuine A-List star and his fall from grace and relative obscurity means you don’t hear about him much but he’s been toiling strange small rolls. He was Steve Buscemi’s Animal Factory, Sean Penn’s The Pledge. He played the villain in the Dennis Rodman / Tsui hark film Double Team (or Double Something I forget). He was originally cast as Stunt Man Mike in Death Proof.
He has a charisma and a presence that makes him stand out. He’s the kind of guy who owns a role so that it never could been played by anyone else.
http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/12/gone-away-come-back-mickey-rourke.html
Apparently Emily Blunt is officially off the movie now, according to Jon Favreau himself.
Samuel L. Jackson just signed a deal to play Nick Fury in 9 of Marvel’s movies.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i57845f198f95ed938a79d4a806b64e68
HE’S IN!!!! HE’S DOING IT!!!!