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.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 4 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
I hoep the Iron Man 2 bit is just a rumor!
i believe they should sign rourke for the role, but I also belive in today's economy that actors should be happy for anything they get (even though we know that will never happen) and especially Rourke who alothough a great actor, was not even considered to be a major part in any movie, much less Iron Man 2
Everyone knows actors/actresses are overpaid and movie budgets are absolutely ridicoulous (the special effects in Hellboy 2 were far superior to anything in Superman Returns; the difference is budget is unbelievable), but $250, 000 is ridicoulous.
Mickey Rourke has rosen back to fame, and while he shouldn't get something like $8 million dollars, he deserves at least 1 million-3 million, the higher being more correct.
I honestly don't know what there trying to do to this movie. They first kick Terrence Howard off, then they annoy Samuel Jackson to the point where it seems he's quitt, Emma Blunt would rather do a different movie, and now Mickey Rourke.
Whomever is in charge of this is an idiot, pure and simple.
What are they doing with the IRON MAN profits???? If they want big stars, they will have to be able to manage big pay offs, it's that simple. A bunch of amateurs heading the Marvel Studio obviously.