Commenting Rules: Keep the conversation civil and on topic. If your comment does not add to the conversation, it will be removed. Debate intelligently. Insulting the author, /Film, or other commenters will result in comment removal and possible ban. If you want to point out a typo, correction, suggestion or criticism for /Film, please email us instead. Please use your name or nickname and not your business name (ie Discount Car Parts) as we might confuse and mark it as spam. If you would like to have your own Avatar show up with your comment, sign-up for a free Disqus account. Any Links will go into moderation before being approved. Anything we deem as spam will not be approved.

Marvel’s Starting Offer for Mickey Rourke as Iron Man Villain: $250,000

Posted on Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 by David Chen

A few weeks ago, the internet was rampant with speculation about Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell’s roles in Iron Man 2. Conflicting reports from Variety and The Hollywood Reporter made people ask who was playing who, and wonder whether Rourke would in fact be playing Crimson Dynamo in the sequel. You can check out our original post on the subject here, and be sure to check out some good analysis by CHUD and MTV too.

Unfortunately, it’s looking like negotiations for the film aren’t going as well as Rourke fans might have hoped. Variety has published an article about the cost cuts that studios have decided to make while under the Damoclean sword of a potential SAG disaster, as well as a punishing economic climate. Actor salaries are one of the first places they’re trying to cut back on, as they don’t represent fixed costs.

One interesting tidbit is the fact that Marvel’s starting offer to Mickey Rourke was $250,000 to play the villain in the new Iron Man film. For an actor whose performance in The Wrestler has made him buzzworthy again, not to mention a virtual lock for an Oscar nomination, $250,000 seems a bit on the low side to me. Granted, we don’t know how big Rourke’s role will be, but this report follows other baffling casting news, such as Samuel L. Jackson’s potential exclusion from the series for financial reasons, Terence Howard’s problematic negotiations, and the former possibility that Favreau might be left out of the picture completely.

One incident is a fluke. Three is a trend. When you’re making money hand over fist like Marvel, I feel like it’s best not to be stingy with your A-list actors (at least, not in a way that will make it onto the trades/blogs).

Discuss: Do you think $250,000 is fair offer to Mickey Rourke to play the villain in Iron Man 2?

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Comments 

Related Posts

Tags

Marvel Studios, Sci-Fi, Sequels, , ,

  • Coolasslarry
    250,000 is way to low for Mickey.......This isnt his first acting gig........its an insult
  • Mickey Fan
    Mickey Rourke has paid his dues and deserves more than 250,000. Look at Julia Roberts making 20 million per movie! C'mon! mickey is more talented than most of these so called actors in hollywood today. it is our treat that WE have him back making movies. I could look at him all day! he can act! He is still hot! Good luck Mickey. marvel open up your pocket book! 250 is too little for a seasoned actor like Rourke! I am a former agent and I know.
  • margie_ann_davis
    How many actors in the past have gone to the burial grounds because they thought they had gotten too big to play certain parts.? After all, Rourke is just on a come back.. He better take as many parts as he can get right now... Iron Man 2 is a pretty good place to start...Hell! I'd be in the movie for 250,000..Wouldn't you?
  • Wright
    Jon Favreau sure does love bringing actors back from the brink of destruction!
  • Surely, unless the role is very small, Marvel couldn't simply offer a re-designed, re-ignited actor who is the shoe in for the 'Best Actor' Oscar a paltry $250k (I say paltry in respects to the pay-packets they receive in Hollywood, hell I'd probably kill for 250k)? Either way, it looks like Marvel is saving its pennies in such times of economic downturn/recession.
  • K.G.
    Marvel is just trying to get him to agree before the oscar noms. If he does get a nod then his agents can easily pump that price up.
  • Ok this just pisses me off!
    Johnny Depp gets paid $57 MILLION for pirates 4!!
    Even Zac Efron gets 5 million for Hsm3...

    But an astounding actor like mickey Rourke gets $250 000?

    Whats the budget like for this movie?? I mean it looks like this is being made like an indy! firing all their actors..paying the ones left behind cheap cheap
  • I think it's just a starting point.
  • I still wouldn't be too broken up if Rourke wasn't chosen. I would love to see someone less known establish themselves in the role.
  • Intense Debate Team
    We have noticed from our database at IntenseDebate that you have multiple accounts with us. Using these account to up your comments score is not allowed. Please Refrain from doing this in the future or else we will have to take action in cancelling your accounts.
    -Michael Dustin
    Intense Debate Team
  • Nanci
    Mickey has stated that he doesn't care how much he is paid if he does not believe in the project or respect the people he is working for on the film. He said that he can't work on films just for a paycheck. He will do the film if he REALLY wants to, period
  • A2K
    Both the leads of Twilight, a movie produced for 37 million(which very likely could be 1/5th Iron Man 2's budget), were paid 1 million dollars. There were reports that they will be paid 12 million each for the sequel.

    250,000 is a joke. 1 million would have been cheap.
  • The wild assumptions in this thread are comical.
  • The fucking craft service lady will make a quarter mil on 6 month shoot.
  • Mickey did the Wrestler for free, maybe he wont care that much about this pay cheque. He seems like a nice enough guy, but i suppose at the end of the day, he does need to live of his pay cheque.
  • He received no money for his work in The Wrestler, though after its success I'm sure he'll be getting something.
  • $250,000 is fine why should actors be paid anymore.
  • gah
    Seriously. As long as they get Sam Jackson and Rourke to do it I could care less about the actual amount.
  • The more we hear about how they're handing this movie, the more I start to wonder if the success of Iron Man was just a fluke.
  • Goro
    Not a fluke: the Will of Jon Favreau, really. I mean how many people were really pumped about Iron Man until Favreau started talking it and then that Comicon vid? That Marvel quashed the vid for several months is proof that if not for a singular will behind Iron Man, it would've sucked. It's not MARVEL that makes the movies, it's the person driving each individual movie. I donut think they understand that and it may be a really tough lesson they learn in the near future.
  • JP Dyno
    Agreed. Its worrying isn't it? Its almost as if they did the first one sparing no expense to get it right... and now they're trying to see if they can do it on a shoestring
  • jrice73
    Seems like Marvel's becoming bigger fuck ups than DC and Warners... That's not surprising.
  • prophecy_projectz
    Marvel is so god damn cheap lol

    Avengers is so not getting made
  • 790
    Is this a real story????????????

    If this report is real ,,,,,,,,,that's Chump change.!!!! Mickey may need an assistant to get around these days but he's not retarded. If I were Rourke I would tell Marvel to only call back when they have a real offer, meanwhile go piss on a power grid.

    (Again if true). Its clear that Marvel got lucky with Iron Man, it looks like they can't find their dick with both hands. Every decision they have made post Iron Man has been wrong.
    Dicking around with Fav's, Hiring Cheadle, not paying Jackson enough, contemplating Iron Man 2 in 3D, offering a future Oscar winning actor pennies to play a major villian.
    Hey maybe to save some cash, they should lay Stan Lee off,,,, morons.
  • it doesn't matter any how, he'd just get cheadled and we'd end up with whoever is 'next on the list' for iron man 3...
  • jason B
    @ ex comic geek

    i'm curious, what 'SNL' are you talking about? all i could think of was saturday night live, and he's never been a cast member on that show - hosted, but not a cast member.

    @ clint barton

    you bring up EXCELLENT points about our teachers & servicemen & women. i have family in both professions, & appreciate it when others acknowledge their crucial - and underpaid - role in the success of this country.
  • ex comic geek
    it was the 1985 season of Saturday night live with Randy Quaid, Joan Cusack, Damon Wayans
  • Dan W
    F**k that! Actors are all overpaid anyway. He should suck it up and do it for the love of being in movies. And if Iron man 2 is as good as the first then he should be excited just to be in it. I mean god damn. Money hungry animals. I think with the current economic prices Hollywood should start evaluating the ridiculous amounts of money actors get for being in a movie. Just like sports players. It sickens me as a human being to have actors complaining about the paycheck to be in a movie. And it sickens me even more for people to think that 250,000 is low. Regardless if they win an award or not. There are other jobs out there that are neccessary for our survival and they don't make nearly as much as these winy bitches.
  • jason B
    look, this role is nowhere near as stunning as the announcement of ledger as the joker - ironman 2 does not hinge upon this villian what-so-ever. there are plenty of people who could play it, and the movie is gonna make a ton of cash regardless. but it does bring up a few things:

    on one hand, you'd like to think that these millionairre actors should absolutely do projects where they take a considerable paycut...but you'd expect those 'pet projects' to be something where they get to work with an amazing director, or a beloved indie filck with no budget.

    on the other hand, those 'pet projects' are not ultra-summer-comic-blockbusters, where you absolutley expect salaries & costs to be high. i wonder if other studios are laughing at the fledgling marvel studios, as they continue to burn bridges in hollywood.

    i am sooooooo curious to see what rourke does. is a he a completely humble man who is just happy to be considered for a roll in a garaunteed hit? or is this seen as an insult?
  • Marvel is running all of this like comic book sales because they're new to it. Whole different beast
  • New to it? They've been doing the movie shit for years. The problem NOW is you're giving an entire movie management company to a group of people who run a COMICBOOK BUSINESS.

    It's not even a different beast, it's a different universe. If they keep it up, they're going to bury themselves (again).
  • Mag
    Don't Judge look what Iron Man did for RDJ?

    ...He's now a International superstar money isn't everything....Still 250 is pretty low for such a physical role.
  • ex comic geek
    RDJ was a star before Iron Man. SNL,Pretty in pink, Ally McBeal, Chaplin, Zodiac it goes on and on. I'll give you he's now A list mega-star material because of Iron man. I just think that rourke wouldn't entice people to come see him as crimson dynamo. Not that people need a reason to see Iron Man.
  • His revival in Sin City has helped him a long. They're low-balling him and that's the Marvel way.
  • ex comic geek
    I love Mickey Rourke, but I see Marvel's point.
    1) rourke has never been that big of a box office draw. He's a great actor but the average movie goer wouldn't be able to name one movie he's been in. Mention harley davidson and the marlboro man, see what type of response you get.
    2)actors are paid what the market will bear. There's a reason Will smith, brad pitt, tom hanks, etc get paid millions. People will see them because they're in it. Regardless of the movie.
    3) this is probably early negotiations. Why start at $1million if you can get him for $250K
    4) this IS mickey rourke. he could still freak out, go on a coke rampage and production would have to stop. There's a reason no one wanted to hire him...
  • PaulWalterHauser
    I think a million is more than fair, for a damn STUDIO TENTPOLE and an actor who is about to be nominated for BEST ACTOR at the OSCARS!

    Marvel is a scummy company. I can't believe the low balling they've been doing.

    Get serious!
  • asianrage
    250K is an insult, especially to any actor who has just won a bunch of award for his acting work.
  • asianrage
    errr... awards
  • Oi Vey
    While I'm not a believer in giving an actor 30 million for one movie, I do believe that 2.5 is kinda low. And after taxes it's like 1.8!
  • Phil
    haha, I bet he'd make more through a big commercial than this...Unless his role is incredibly small (being a main villain I'd say not) he should get way more than this, 2.5 and up at the very least. Then again, Rourke did a lot of drugs in his life, maybe he read it wrong and forgot a zero?
  • This isn't even a low ball offer, its a joke...
  • Maybe they will only put him in after the credits and then sign someone else to play CD for the third film. You know, cause that whole Samuel L. Jackson strategy is working like a charm.
  • I find this funny on so many levels. Actors are overpaid to begin with. Paying someone millions of dollars to read words someone else wrote and read them the way someone else tells you to read them while people who spend their lives running into burning buildings make a pittance is just absurd to me.

    Moving beyond that though, who is Marvel kidding? They essentially have a license to print money. No matter how crummy the movie is, people are going to see it in droves. Now they want to pay their talent like that while they'll probably spend $500k for a VisFX company to render the interface in Iron Man's suit?
  • Hoogidy Boogidy
    this post reeks of:
    A. Jealousy
    and
    B. A general misunderstanding of how the movie industry works.

    Firefighters don't make the money performers do because they are paid by the city, actors are essentially paid by the people (meaning anyone in the world who pays for a movie ticket). If huge blockbuster movies like Iron Man didn't make $300m + domestic plus same amount overseas, then the pay MIGHT not be justified, but acting takes considerable talent and time investment (15 hour days sometimes, not to mention press). Also, think about who is responsible for making Iron Man the big, fun movie it is. Well, ok, everyone who worked on it, but as crude as it sounds, most of the crew is replaceable, the cast and the creative talent (aka Jon Fav & his writers), are not. You can LEARN how to light a set, work a camera, and build a set, you can't really learn how to look and act like Robert Downey Jr. I don't mean to come off as a dick, but c'mon man, just think about it.
  • Reeks of jealousy? Um, yes. I would love to be paid millions of dollars to act like a womanizing coke-head. Which, by the way, is infinitely easier when you have a history of being a womanizing coke-head.

    You've misinterpreted my post though. I understand how the industry works (as well as anyone not a part of the industry can really understand it). I simply don't like how it works. That's just my opinion.

    I still think actors are overpaid and there's nothing about the way the industry works that will change my mind on that. The comparison to the firefighters was for effect to highlight the point that they make enough money for a lifetime from one movie's worth of "work." Favreau and the writers (as well as others like DOP, etc) deserve to make heaps of money - THAT is the creative talent. But there's something about people's perception of movies that won't allow them to appreciate it as a collaborative effort of thousands of people and so it ends up that studios sell films based on two names.
  • You do not understand how the industry works. Come out here, work in the industry, learn the ins and outs and then read your above statements. You will realize how wrong you are. You have made many offensive and flat out wrong assumptions in your post. You do not realize how hard people in this industry (yes, even actors) work. Actors are a MAJOR part of on set collaboration in any good movie. You do not realize how difficult it is. You are wrong and would be ashamed of yourself if you ever took your head out of your ass long enough to educate yourself instead of living in the shadows of ignorance. Go ask any director how big a role the actors play in the creativity of the project. Go ahead. I'll wait.
    PS
    If running into burning buildings was as marketable as movies in any way then firemen would make millions too. It isn't. So don't compare it. Somebody has got to earn all the money movies make. The salary actors get is a fair share of the earnings based on how much they add to the marketability. Why should they earn less so a producer who worked less on the movie can earn more? Where do you think that money would go? Charity?
  • Ken
    Economy is hitting everyone. That may be an issue. Time Warner just laid aff a bunch of people. These incredible salaries may be a thing o f the past for a lot of actors
  • Tom
    amen! i don't think the economy really hits home to average people like us, but for a company with huge fiscal concerns, like marvel, it does in a big way. things haven't been this bad since the GREAT DEPRESSION people, do you honestly think that marvel, or anyone, can just go about business as usual? salaries in film across the board could start to take a hit. my income has taken a hit with the also, i hate to break it to you all, but the wrestler is not a huge hit. i loved it, critics loved it, he got a golden globe, probably will get an oscar, but that doesn't change the fact that a significant portion of the nominal movie going public that made iron man a huge hit have never even heard of it. not everyone reads film blog web sites, a lot of people go to the movies strictly for entertainment. those people will never see the wrestler, and will probably consider mickey rourke to still be a total has been. he doesn't have the star power a lot of you would apparently like to think he does. it was a starting offer, and it wasn't to matt damon, get over it.
blog comments powered by Disqus

gorilla nation

/Film

Copyright © 2010 /Film. Web design by Pro Blog Design. Logo Concept by: Illumination Ink

All names, trademarks and images are copyright their respective owners.