While the casting process for the role of Peggy Carter in The First Avenger:Captain America wasn’t as confusing or rumor-infused as it was for Marvel Studios making the choice of Chris Evans as Steve Rogers, there were still a few names in the running for the leading actress.
When it came down to it, director Joe Johnston and Marvel chose Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter in Captain America, but she wasn’t their first choice. Rumors hit the web a few weeks back that Emily Blunt, who worked with Johnston on The Wolfman, was offered the part but turned it down. Why? The speculation pointed towards the possibility of her gunning for the role of Catwoman in Batman 3.
Now we have confirmation that she did in fact, turn the role down and some of the reasons why…
MTV had the chance to talk with Emily Blunt about her turning down the part and how close her husband, John Krasinski, came to playing the title character. The first thing she made sure to point out is that her refusing the part was in no part due to her relationship with director, who she has positive words for.
“I’m a big supporter of [director] Joe Johnston and I think that ‘Captain America’ is going to be really fun and I gather that the story is really interesting… It just wasn’t what I wanted to do next, to be honest.”
The role of Peggy Carter came with a multi-picture contract and this was something Blunt wasn’t interested in and/or ready for. Blunt is known for doing indie pictures and taking on Captain America would mean she’d be obligated for sequels and a possible appearance in The Avengers. He current interest was to shoot a comedy as her next picture.
“There’s definitely a high commitment level and I’m not someone who likes to plan too much ahead… That would also be an issue for me as well.”
What is it going to take to get this girl in a Marvel movie? She had the role of Black Widow in Iron Man 2 but had to drop out due to scheduling conflicts and now she turns down this part. Third time’s a charm? Nope. We wouldn’t be talking about this if her hubby got the gig of the star-spangled Avenger I’m sure.
With Blunt out, HayleyAtwell still beat out the likes of Keira Knightley and Alice Eve. Atwell joins Chris Evans is Captain America, Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes and Hugo Weaving is the villainous Red Skull. Are you happy with Hayley Atwell playing Peggy Carter?
Still think Blunt has a shot at Catwoman if she turns out to be a character in Batman 3? Any other Marvel movie roles you can think of for Blunt to turn down in the future?
Follow me on Twitter @rob_keyes.
Iron Man 2 opens NEXT WEEK May 7, 2010, Thor opens May 5, 2011, The First Avenger: Captain America hits July 22, 2011 and The Avengers is scheduled to debut May 4, 2012.
Source MTV
‘Anchorman 2′ Trailers Tease the Return of Ron Burgundy’s News Team [Updated] 
Hugh Jackman Reveals Summer Start Date for ‘Wolverine 2′ 
‘Walking Dead’ Season 3 Preview Reveals The Prison & Michonne [Updated] 
‘Breaking Bad’ Season 5 Premieres July 15; Concludes Summer 2013 
Loading ...
Hayley Atwell is Gorgeous,,, They definitely didnt go wrong with her.
the only possible other characters I can think of Emily Blunt playing right now are Wasp, Ms. Marvel, and maybe She-Hulk.
and we need her in a Marvel movie why??? just askin…….
It comes back to Marvel and the multi-film deals. They are ruining casting decisions by making people sign on for multiple movies.
We don't. We just need her to refuse another
I disagree. Having the same actor play the same character throughout the series is the only way it should be done. It would be awful to see major characters being replaced or movies held up with re-signing inflated deals with actors.
It's awesome Fury is in for 9 movies. It's also awesome Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson are all locked up long term as well
Rob,
I see your point and I agree but just because someone doesn't agree to a nine picture deal doesn't mean they won't come back for a second or third movie. Asking them to commit to a franchise before they see a minute of film is ridiculous. Why would an accomplished actor or actress commit to a nine picture deal when the first movie could absolutely bomb? I like having RDJ as Iron Man throughout all the movies but it won't happen in the long run. He will be in the first Avengers movie, possibly Iron Man 3 and that will probably end his run. He has already said this much. Having SLJ appear as Nick Fury for 45 seconds in 9 different movies really doesn't make a huge difference to me because he hasn't had a major role yet. It's overrated imo.
Actually it does mean that.
If you've followed the casting ever since Iron Man, all contracts have been extremely LOW and this caused issues with Mickey Rourke, Jon Favreau and Sam L.
The whole point of the multi-picture contract is to sign someone like Evans for a 9-picture deal at $300,000 per film. Marvel is be very strict on their contracts for cost control and to play long-term.
If he signed a one-picture contact for that much and Captain America brings in half a billion, he and his agent demand $20 million for the next picture. Look at the nasty huge contracts the cast of The Hangover just signed. $300 000 for first film, no option for multiple pictures, negotiated up to $10 million plus a share of the gross.
As for your question, ALL comic book and franchise-type films come with options for extra pictures. That's standard and it has nothing to do with them seeing “a minute of the film.” So it's very far from ridiculous.
Fury has a much bigger part in Iron Man 2 and he plays a MAJOR role in The Avengers. No cameos or guest appearances in those.
Emily Blunt should have been Black Widow but Marvel screwed that one up. They get a second chance in Captain America and what do they do with it? They blow it again by trying to make her sign the same deal. I'm sorry Rob but I don't think we'll see Emily in any Marvel movie any time soon unfortunately.
remember toby and spider man 3 asking for so much $$ and almost refused to do it, thats why they have contracts now
Why sorry? Of course we won't, lol.
I'm sure Krasinski's not getting the part had something to do with it as well.
Oh, it's also necessary so they can plan and schedule multiple future projects at once with them contracted. Otherwise if they hold up with negotiations of if there are recasts, everything gets screwed up.
Rob,
I'm not trying to come off like a jerk just stating my opinion. Emily said it herself: “There’s definitely a high commitment level and I’m not someone who likes to plan too much ahead… That would also be an issue for me as well.” That says it all.
I understand Marvel's plan to stay focused financially and it works well but we could have so many different and accomplished actors involved if it wasn't for the low pay and nine picture deals. Samuel L Jackson took the deal because he is overrated and all about the easy paycheck these days. Nothing easier than appearing in a movie for 45 seconds. He has even said it himself so let's just leave him out of the conversation all together. He has become a total disgrace to film. RDJ was on his way back up the food chain when he took the Iron Man gig and that was very lucky for us or we could have been stuck with some bad actor as Tony Stark. They got Hemsworth because he is up and coming and they could get him cheap. Same with Evans. I'm not saying Brad Pitt or Matt Damon should have been cast as Cap but cut the deal down to 4 or 5 flicks or something. You don't see DC doing that with Nolan and Bale and Freeman and they aren't saying give me 20 million or I'm not doing it. I agree but also disagree with the way Marvel has handled things. Some good and some bad. We can't have it all can we?
Patrick,
I understand that. So you move on from Toby. He wasn't that great anyway. If they had a nine picture deal with Toby as Spiderman we would all be pissed.
I understand and I like that aspect of it.
Dude, Sam L isn't appearing in any upcoming movies for 45 seconds. Where are you getting that from?
DC isn't doing that because they never planned to and they couldn't because Nolan wanted his universe separate and because Supes was held up with litigation.
It took Marvel's efforts to start to get them to come around.
When you say
“I understand Marvel's plan to stay focused financially and it works well but we could have so many different and accomplished actors involved if it wasn't for the low pay and nine picture deals.”
Combined with:
“Asking them to commit to a franchise before they see a minute of film is ridiculous. Why would an accomplished actor or actress commit to a nine picture deal when the first movie could absolutely bomb?”
Shows me that you're not understanding how this actually works.
I don't understand your point. It sounds like you're trying to say it's better for them to pay more and not have long term contracts so they can sign ppl who aren't committed and so they can't plan the Avengers and the future of the Marvel movie universe, all while paying more in the process. I don't get it…
Rob, just read what Emily said. “There’s definitely a high commitment level and I’m not someone who likes to plan too much ahead… That would also be an issue for me as well.” That tells you exactly her reasoning for not taking the role.
And I do understand how it all works. My point is they don't have to give someone 10 million to be Captain America but they can also make it worth the actor taking a chance with a director like Joe Johnston for more than just 300k. Middle ground my friend, not the low or high end.
That's (one of) Emily's reasons for leaving. No one's questioning that but you've brought it up twice again.
Your point is that the actors aren't paid enough?
You work for Screenrant for 200k per year but I want to recruit you for my up and coming website which could POSSIBLY be the next big thing but you have to sign a 10 year contract at 25k per year. You would say NO.
Ah, so you don't know what you're talking about, heh.
That's his salary. Do you know how much he'll make with endorsements, merchandising and potential bonuses?
You should go back and read all of your comments because you're saying 10 different things. Your first comment I responded to was this:
“It comes back to Marvel and the multi-film deals. They are ruining casting decisions by making people sign on for multiple movies.”
Which is wrong. They aren't ruining casting decisions, they're making them better and ensuring the future and success of the franchise.
Now if you're arguing salaries now, that's an entirely different point and I don't care about it because that's not what I'm discussing.
I apologize for taking this thread hostage lol.
I don't know what I'm talking about. Okay, then you must be right I guess.
It's both. Not one or the other, both. Stay in denial.
They wouldn't have to use him. They could still reboot with someone else.
If they did have such a contract, they wouldn't of had to pay him $25-50 mill for Spider-Man 4 if they went through with it.
Part of the reason they decided to reboot was for the lower $80 budget and non-inflated new contracts they could sign instead of paying a ton to bring back the actors (see above comment thread to why this is important)
@mchops,hey both you and Rob have some valid points but numero uno, FOX are the ones who REFUSED to negotiate with Emily Blunt & Marvel Studios to allow for Emily Blunt to do both Iron Man 2 and “Gullivers Travels”. Many actors have been able to juggle multiple movies around or very close to the same production times.FOX did it on purpose to throw a monkey wrench into MS's program. Numero dos, how long has Marvel Studios ACTUALLY been in existence??? Three 2-3 years no more than four, so there is no way they are going sling money around like other studios who've been around for decades are able to do.Remember, they still have to pay all of the other staff AND they still have to pay back the bank who lent them the money to start their own studio. “Marvel Studios” is still a baby, so I don't blame them for taking baby steps with their money they don't want to start borrowing money from Disney even if they are a subsidiary of Disney now,that's not a good look. Numero tres, the Multi-pic deal is just that, a deal and deals need to be negotiated not just thrown out there. The multi-pic deals for major characters such as Captain America will gain millions for the actor in other endorsements through Marvel with that character and his image beyond just “his performance”.Y numero cuatro,Emily Blunt would have only done two movies, Captain America and possibly the Avengers(as an older woman).
It's all good dude, I love your enthusiasm! You come across as a very respectful and intellectual guy. I think we're all welcome to rant as much as we want on here. Right Rob?
@mchops BUT keep in mind, if Chris Evans owns this role and becomes a BIG household name because of this, he WILL be THE NEXT “Tom Cruise”(but better,and hopefully not all weird and Scientology-ish). He WILL be able to ask for any amount of money or role he wants in Hollywood and most likely get it. Marvel Studios knows this,Chris Evans does too.
Great points Ulik. I agree and think Blunt would have been great for 2 or 3 movies in Cap and the Avengers or whatever others movies they had in mind for her.
Ulik
I can totally see that. If Captain America ends up even close to the success Iron Man had then Evans will be set. If it stinks then he goes down with the ship and his rep takes a major hit at the same time. He knew this and that's probably why he took his time to make a decision on taking the role or not.
Evans sees, just like everyone else, how well superhero and comic book movies are doing now and wanted to get more of a taste of it then he had with the Fantastic Four. Almost everyone agrees the Fantastic Four movies were a disappointment but he wasn't bad in them.