Rourke is 'Expendable' and Perhaps Not in 'Iron Man 2'
Could this be over pay?
Just yesterday Ain't It Cool News confirmed Mickey Rourke's involvement in Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables, but the day prior Rourke lost his canine companion, his 18-year-old Chihuahua Loky, and today New York Magazine carries a quote in which Rourke says he isn't signed for Iron Man 2.
But so what if ICM's David Unger doesn't look good in a dress — at least he's battling Marvel for a bigger paycheck for Rourke for his rumored role as a villain in Iron Man 2, right? "Right now, we're not doing Iron Man 2," Rourke told us grimly.
The pacheck talk comes from a Variety article from January in which it said:
Then there is comeback kid Mickey Rourke, who is poised to follow his Golden Globe-winning performance in "The Wrestler" with an offer to play the main villain in "Iron Man 2" — but at a lowball opening offer of $250,000 from Marvel; Marvel's tactics have already prompted Samuel L. Jackson to swear off playing Nick Fury because of a similarly low offer.
The news made its way around the Net quickly, but I kept mum primarily due to the fact I thought it was so odd people that would always be quick to comment on how actors don't have to work hard for the millions they make were now complaining because it was such a low number. Of course, it goes without saying $250k for a sequel to a movie that generated over $582 million worldwide is quite insulting. I mean, this is a business of proportions after all, and I am sure Rourke at least knows his times tables and was able to put two and two together and told 'em where to put their $250k.
So, for now, we wait.
RSS Feed
| 4 comments so far 
news feeds