Comments on: Marvel Studios: Screwing Up Or Being Sensible?

By: In Defense of Edward Norton as the Hulk… « the m0vie blog

In Defense of Edward Norton as the Hulk… « the m0vie blog — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:30:32 +0000

[...] that they’d just as easily dump him and recast. And he has now signed a nine-picture deal. They love messing around with actors to get their salaries down. So maybe this is the same thing, but I doubt it. It just seems more final. Indeed, Kevin Feige, [...]

By: Marvelsfolly

Marvelsfolly — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:59:26 +0000

you ARE of base. Marvel is not only being a cheapskate, but quickly spending the credibility they won after being a joke when it comes to film incarnations of thier movies.
I have always been a “Marvel guy”, but i am already fairly certain they believe visual effects and the coolness of thier characters alone are what drives the recent success of their films.Imho they could not be more wrong.

By: usaywha?

usaywha? — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:18:25 +0000

Thier first MISTAKE was trying to attract quality actors? The “success” of previous Marvel comic films is well documented. Only after they made their “first mistake” did they achieve any level of box office success with their film-versions. It seems they have forgotten the formula for their success and are prepared to produce the same kind of mediocre crap they always did when it comes to thier films.

By: usaywha

usaywha — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:14:54 +0000

The BIg dogs? please all tthey are standing up for is putting more of the profits in their pockets.the comic fans may support these tactics but the movie-going public will not pay 10 bucks a view for an inferior product for long.
If you r not willing to pay for quality performers, you will NOT get quality performances on a consistent basis.

By: usaywha?

usaywha? — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:10:10 +0000

it is one thing to pay 5 stars 100 mill as u describe and entirely another to insult established actors playing roles in a sequel.That is a betrayal to those fans who payed thier dollars to support the first film.
I do not know the details of the specific contract issues, but the widespread reports of Marvel lowballing actors already established in their successful films smells of greed and arrogance.If i owned any stock in Marvel i would sell.

By: usaywha

usaywha — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:05:18 +0000

are u f'ing kidding me? the budget for these films does not dictate the kind of offers described in this article.pure arrogance shall no doubt lead to the production of something similair to Marvel Comics literally translated to film
If u have read any lately, that is going to be a BAD thing for movie fans. Movies should be an advance over the comic-page.unless you are willing to pay 10 bucks to view a comic ONCE!

By: caleb

caleb — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 03:26:41 +0000

They are being CHEAP. there is a big difference between 250,000 and 10 million. are you telling me that the large rolled actors dont deserve somewhere in the middle? NO actor should make less than a mil is they are playing a significant part in a movie. i dont care if its mickey rouke or not.

By: McFlyer

McFlyer — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:24:05 +0000

I could not agree more that maybe actors need to be more realistic about their salary. There are regular people losing their jobs and trying to scrape a living together on $20K per year, and then someone complains that he/she will only make $250K for a partial year? Granted, there is some “hazard pay” involved because the public can’t seem to leave these people alone, but let’s be reasonable. IMDb.com cites that Jackson received a $10M paycheck for Shaft. Ten million! I consider myself lucky to be employed and make a decent salary for the cost of living in my area, and it would take me 180 years to bank that kind of cash. (You do the math.) Celebrities, not just actors, need to get over themselves. Then again, the rest of the world needs to realize that these are just people, stop idolizing them so much, and stop supporting those who pester and/or glamorize celebritydom for a profit. I might have an over inflated ego too (more than it already is) if the evening news was running stories about my grocery list.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:56:55 +0000

I agree 100% Sam jackson isnt a drawing card to cinema’s as good of an actor as he is. and the only scene he was in in iron man was at the end of the credits, id dare say unless you are a major comic fan you wouldnt have even sat through the credits to see it. so it shouldnt honestly make the slightest bit of difference to the success of the follow up, id say most people will be returning to see downey’s heleriously charming portayal of stark.

By: ephus

ephus — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:50:21 +0000

Personally I would be willing to bet that Sam Jackson didn’t even see the offer Marvel made but instead his agent told him that they were insulting him by making such a low offer (what ever it was) and once they see how much they need him they will him what he deserves.
Said agent knows he gets a cut of what SAM gets offered. low offer to Sam means less of a cut for him, and lord knows that that can’t happen. Honestly I think that the agents(and others like them) looking to get their cut for doing JACK SH*T (other than saying my client demands more money) are the ones that should be removed from the equation and boom you keep your A-list actor and still free up millions in cash.
NOTE: I am not an idiot… I KNOW that would be a cold day in hell; its just wishful thinking.

Also
@DarkGrittyMovieLoverX
“you can rest assured that DC WILL kick their assess.”
looks like in making JLA DC may have screwed the pooch before it began with the idea of hiring C-list actors most of which don’t fit the profile. When you decide to try and replace Christian Bale with D.J. Cotrona as Batman you are asking for either a cheap movie that will be an utter disappointment or a fanboy riot, and the rest of the cast appears to be more cheap solutions to answer to question of “How do we counter the MARVEL MOVIE THREAT”

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:09:45 +0000

@DarkGritty

Sorry, I disagree. Lots of movies with unknown actors make boatloads of money and lots of movies with big name stars bomb big time.

Vic

By: DarkGrittyMovieLoverX

DarkGrittyMovieLoverX — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:29:38 +0000

Don’t know about anyone else but I think Marvel is being a little TOO cheap on these actors. I understand that the little guys are the ones who should get the creds but in reality, it’s the stars and their performances/box-office draw that brings in the crowds;lets be realistic here. A movie’s success depends on the performances that an actor/actress brings to the roles they play. Without them, they’ll flop. I’m glad Warner Bros is not being cheap with Bale because without him, Batman Begins and especially The Dark Knight would NOT have been successful without it’s lead star. Just look at how many talented actors those two films combined have. They be stupid not to pay them high salaries and I don’t want to see anyone other than Bale as Batman. Sorry but that’s my 2 cents.

The thing is this: If Marvel or any studio for that matter wants a high-grossing film, then they better pony up the dough. If not then you can rest assured that DC WILL kick their assess.

By: Who can help me with debt consolidation? | Information About This- The Internets Information Authority

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:26:08 +0000

[...] Marvel Studios: Screwing Up Or Being Sensible? – Screen Rant Tags: Credit Debt, Credit Rating, Screwing [...]

By: ashwee

ashwee — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:11:01 +0000

i dont care who gets paid what as long as there is robert i dont give a crap

By: John "Kahless" Taylor

John "Kahless" Taylor — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:34:06 +0000

I thought I had posted on this thread but I don’t see it. Anyway, I think Marvel is low-balling actors because they intend to have much more CGI in IM 2, which means more money. I also agree with Rob that there may be too many superhero characters in this sequel. No one wants another Spidey 3 or X-Men 3.

By: sesquipedalian

sesquipedalian — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:12:56 +0000

What do you mean by the avengers being the penultimate event? Is there something planned after Avengers?

By: Todd

Todd — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:16:24 +0000

Well didnt mickey rourke get paid nothing for the wrestler? I am sure he is worth at least $500k for playing the main villian in a blockbuster. They are lowballing him big time – he wouldnt be expecting millions of dollars like other actors in the series. At least give him what he is worth in the movie making economy.

By: WAR-MACHINE

WAR-MACHINE — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 17:05:23 +0000

i honestly liked the 1st iron man film, im gunna have to adjust to a ne WAR – MACHINE .
don looks like he can play the part , but as 4 marvel kick’in Sam Jackson im suprised .
if the were going with the Ultimates seris version so Nick Fury. the kinda need him .
but if the woulde have went withe the original . the could have goten a number of actors .
but i still agree with the fans on the Nick Furry post. from last week .
Bruce willis in an EYE-PATCH sounds good 2 me.

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:53:07 +0000

@Daniel F

I think your point is valid when an actor being in a film influences someone to go who might not otherwise – and a LOT of people are swayed that way.

Vic

By: SK47

SK47 — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:51:43 +0000

If Rourke has accepted the role for 250K then I say good for him! It shows that the project and the job is more important than the exceedingly higher pay grade!

back to Vic,
again, these are two seperate movie projects. I’m sure for Iron Man a lot of kids must have forced their parents to take them to the movie. Seeing that it was Downey might have made the experience that much better than seeing a bad PG movie like, I dunno, Madagascar 2. But, what about those who wanted to see Iron Man and do not really care/or know that much about Downey’s fall and rise? Like you have said, we will never know.