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

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.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:15:43 +0000

I’m worried this could turn into a disaster

I think there are too many characters in this (Rockwell, Rourke PLUS Hawkeye and black widow) really? In the same movie where we meet War Machine and Rhodes gets more screen time?

That sounds like a dirty mess of a story coming on top of all this financial nonsense where they can’t keep essentials like Fury (who is extremely important after his cameo in IM 1).

Some one sure doesn’t know what they’re doing over there – Marvel Studios is showing their Noob side with this

By: Doom3524

Doom3524 — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:11:42 +0000

Here is my thought on this. I think that they are trying to be a little frugal for now since they still only have the 2 movies done and out, and 1 was huge, but the other was minimal in its gain.

I think they pay lower amounts now so that when Avengers comes out they can drop a ton more money on top line guys for big villains and to afford all the headliners that will make up the team.

The last thing you want to do is spend all your money now, and then in 2010 when you are casting avengers be short and not be able to afford all the guys you already have entrenched into the characters. I understand SLJ as Fury was perfect, but its not Cap, its not Iron Man and its not Thor. Fury is a secondary character that you can change up a bit. They NEED Downey, Norton (this is still up uin the air) and whoever Thor, Hawkeye, Black Widow and Cap will be (crossing my fingers for Matt Damon).

Just a theory though

By: Daniel F

Daniel F — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:30:28 +0000

I refuse to ever complain about what an actor or athlete makes because I contribute to what they make. If it get under your skin then don’t watch. I have a friend who does nothing but talk about how much he hates actors for how much they make, but rest assured he watches almost as many as I do. I see that as hypocritical and you couldn’t convince me that its not. If you dont like what they make dont rent a movie or buy a dvd.

By: FRED

FRED — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:39:33 +0000

Marvel is better off setting back the release date for the Avengers from 2011 to 2014 . This way they can cast unknowns to play most of their lesser known characters and also have a Nick Fury film . Make these films low-budget ones and accumulate a gradual profit. See Marvel have also put plenty of pressure on themselves by saying that the release date for and Avengers film is in 2011 . This would cause them to have a rushed project and thus make rash finacial desicions and also not enable for better plot developement. If Marvel gains profit from maybe 3-4 low-bugdet films on hteir lesser known characters, then they can even go for a 300+ budget on the Avengers flick.

Ed Norton should get paid the highest of all the main four actors for the Avengers because he should also double as a producer.

By: JessSayin'

JessSayin' — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:29:41 +0000

I have another angle you guys might want to consider..

Actors and their salaries aside, you can imagine what good CG from more than a few effects houses is gonna cost for these upcoming movies.
Movies that have the same characters played by the same actors in all of them.

Who they get for these roles and what they have to pay them is seriously gonna affect the bottom line after the DVD sales have been tallied and it’s on to the next film in the series.

They might just be holding their cards close and REALLY counting their chips before they call the next bet.

By: Vic Holtreman

Vic Holtreman — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:12:17 +0000

@Darren

Great comment. Notice I did not say *financial* disappointments. You do have a point, though – the fans can be too close to the source material and blind to the fact that you have to make adjustments when going from the comic book page to the big screen with live actors.

As far as Spidey 3, sure, the anticipation played into it. But in cases like that a second viewing, after all the hype is out of the way often tells the true story. The problem with the Venom story arc was that it was shoehorned into the plot and it was obvious even to the casual viewer.

I actually think that for TRULY faithful book to screen adaptations that would still look right on the big screen you’d have to do it via CGI animation.

Vic

By: Jess H.

Jess H. — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:40:20 +0000

I completly agree with what Marvel is doing. I like that they are looking at how the movie showed be and not who is in it. Sure, I like to see the same people play the same roles that they played in the previouse film, but if they are pushing the wrong buttons with the studio that is hiring them, then thats their own fault. Give the part to someone who wants to put the heart and time into it and is not just looking for a bigger payday. I applaud these actors. Marvel is looking ahead like they should be. I dont feel that Marvel is in the wrong, they are being realistic and doing the right thing for their buisness and their movies.