RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Yeah, I read that this morning. Pretty cool although my kid's upset that it isn't going to be Mandarin.
Rourke and Rockwell are the Iron Man 2 Villains!
Source:The Hollywood Reporter, Variety January 7, 2009
Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) and Sam Rockwell (Frost/Nixon) are in talks to star as the villains in Marvel Studios' Iron Man 2, being directed by Jon Favreau from a script by Justin Theroux, according to Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.
THR says that Rourke would play a tattooed Russian heavy named Ivan who becomes a man with deadly, technologically enhanced coils. Variety adds that Rourke would play the Crimson Dynamo. "He's considered to be an evil version of Iron Man because he battles the superhero in a nuclear-powered suit of armor," says the trade.
Rockwell would play Justin Hammer, a multibillionaire businessman and a rival of industrialist Tony Stark, AKA Iron Man, being played by a returning Robert Downey Jr.
Rourke and Rockwell would be joining a cast that also includes the returning Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle, who is replacing Terrence Howard.
Another part -- one for Stark's assistant Natasha -- is still open.
The project is eyeing a spring start in Manhattan Beach. Paramount will release the movie May 7, 2010.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
over at superherohype.com they're saying Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell have been cast as the Crimson Dynamo and Justin Hammer.
Not sure about Rourke but Rockwell should be good as Justin Hammer.
Isn't Justin Hammer a much older character than Sam Rockwell? It's been a while since I came across him in an Iron Man comic.
I hope the 'nuclear-powered' Crimson Dynamo suit isn't supposed to some sort of 'enemy of the environment'. It's not a good fit for the Iron Man mythos.
Ivan who becomes a man with deadly, technologically enhanced coils.
just what are "technologically enhanced coils"?
I think that was a veiled and obscure description implying that Rourke, too, would be an armored individual. It appears that Variety deduced that he would be playing The Crimson Dynamo.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Ivan who becomes a man with deadly, technologically enhanced coils.
just what are "technologically enhanced coils"?
I think that was a veiled and obscure description implying that Rourke, too, would be an armored individual. It appears that Variety deduced that he would be playing The Crimson Dynamo.
That's how I took it as well, darenhat.
I've got to say, I was expecting a villian a little more organic this time around, this metal for metal thing could get kind of stale with Iron Monger being in the first one. That being said, it still could turn out pretty cool.
Dynamo has had many looks over the years but this one was my favorite.
The lastest design's armor (comics) looks much too like the one Stane used in the last film so I expect a look more along this fashion. The coils would eject from his wrists I believe much like the ones on Omega Red...another Russian villian.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited January 2009
Rockwell is a good choice for Justin Hammer though.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Rockwell is a good choice for Justin Hammer though.
I'm sure that Rockwell will be fine,but as I recall,Justin Hammer was always drawn to look like Peter Cushing(even the name is a giveaway-"just in Hammer").But then again,Downey's Stark is about ten years older than the comic book version.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Rockwell is a good choice for Justin Hammer though.
I'm sure that Rockwell will be fine,but as I recall,Justin Hammer was always drawn to look like Peter Cushing(even the name is a giveaway-"just in Hammer").But then again,Downey's Stark is about ten years older than the comic book version.
Y'know, W.G., fanboys on websites all over are sort of sour with the casting of Rockwell and that's fine. My problem with all of this is that the same fanboys are applauding the casting of Ceadle as Rhodie.
Quite frankly, the only thing that Don Cheadle has in common with James Rhodes is race; I cannot see this guy as Stark's best friend...I just can't. That part just screams Jai Michael White with the physique and the voice. Cheadle sounds just as mousy as Howard did.
I hope he tries to bulk up some like he's drawn in the books to be.
I know that Don has the aptitude to deliver but if you're going to pick on one, you may as well the other.
I understand that Favreau wants a younger Hammer probably because Iron Man battled a grandpa in the last one. Rockwell can play sleazy and back-stabbing convincingly enough.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Yeah, I read that this morning. Pretty cool although my kid's upset that it isn't going to be Mandarin.
Favreau has said repeatedly that the Mandarin is the overaching villain (kind of like Palpatine in Star Wars) and as such won't be a major factor until a third film.
As for the potential casting of Rourke and Rockwell, I'm intrigued. Rourke is one of the "hot" actors after his turn in The Wrestler and is the kind of guy who will bury himself in the part. And after seeing Confessions of a Dangerous Mind I was convinced that Rockwell could do anything. He's also one of those chameleons that can really change his appearance. The still uncast character of "Stark's Assistant, Natasha" would also suggest some sort of falling out with Pepper Potts during the movie.
It is kind of odd to once again have a business rival and another armored foe in the mix but those were two staples of the comics when I read the books so I guess its to be expected of the films. I'm also sure the filmmakers weren't totally satisfied with the Iron Man vs. Iron Monger climax last time around and want to try to improve on that.
As for Cheadle, he always struck me as being older than he actually is. I was actually surprised to discover that he's about the same age as Downey. He's pretty versatile and I'm sure he'll be fine.
Looks like Favreau and Marvel continue to line up solid talent and move forward with a strong vision for their properties. WB on the other hand is still trying to figure out what shade of red Superman's cape should be for his next movie.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited January 2009
Emily Blunt to Star in Iron Man 2?
Source:Variety January 14, 2009
Variety is reporting the rumor that Emily Blunt is in talks to play Natasha Romanoff in Iron Man 2. Romanoff is a Soviet super spy who doubles as Black Widow, a beauty in a skintight black costume that is enhanced by high-tech weaponry.
She would join the previously-announced villains Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell in the sequel. Again directed by Jon Favreau, the Marvel Studios film sees the return of Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, while Don Cheadle is replacing Terrence Howard.
Blunt's credits include The Devil Wears Prada, The Jane Austen Book Club and Charlie Wilson's War. She also stars in The Wolfman, coming to theaters in November.
The Justin Theroux-scripted Iron Man 2 will begin production this spring for a release by Paramount on May 7, 2010.
I really hope that she gets the part because IMO, she is seriously a beautiful and talented woman. I think she'll make an excellent choice for Black Widow. B-)
This bit of news, on the other hand, is a little disappointing...
No More Nick Fury for Samuel L. Jackson?
Source:Los Angeles Times January 14, 2009
Samuel L. Jackson, who made a cameo appearance as Nick Fury in Iron Man, tell the Los Angeles Times that talks about him returning to the role in future Marvel Studios have broken down:
"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"
I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.
I hope that they can come to an agreement amicably. I want to see Jackson return for the sequel seeing that Ultimate Nick Fury was created due to Jackson's blessings that his likeness was used.
This is typical of Marvel. X-(
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Emily Blunt as Natasha/Black Widow sounds good to me, and I guess it would make sense within the framework of the story if Crimson Dynamo is indeed one of the heavies.
As for Samuel L. Jackson, I loved his cameo at the end of Iron Man but he's really done himself no favors by appearing in a seemingly endless string of critical and box office turkeys, The Spirit being just the latest atrocity. I think he's really worn out his coolness factor and I wouldn't be surprised if studios are starting to see him as a box office liability. Reading between the lines, it also sounds like money is a sticking point and if I were Jackson, I'd be cutting my fees down accordingly if I could be associated with a successful enterprise.
As for Samuel L. Jackson, I loved his cameo at the end of Iron Man but he's really done himself no favors by appearing in a seemingly endless string of critical and box office turkeys, The Spirit being just the latest atrocity. I think he's really worn out his coolness factor and I wouldn't be surprised if studios are starting to see him as a box office liability.
Completely agree. I love Samuel L. Jackson, and will forever be grateful to him for his performance in Pulp Fiction but he really needs to get better career advice. He starred in Snakes on a Plane solely due to the title, and while I understand why he did the Star Wars prequels, I don't think that by doing so has enhanced his coolness or cultural impact. Or his mystique; which due to his Christoper Walken-like prolificness, has only been harmed, especially since he makes so many bad choices. That all said, I think he's a great actor, I love watching him, and I loved his appearance in IM, so I certainly am hoping that he will return in IM 2.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I vaguely get the sense that Jackson does movies chiefly in order to hang out with a cool (read lucrative) Hollywood crowd rather than to make great movies.
I vaguely get the sense that Jackson does movies chiefly in order to hang out with a cool (read lucrative) Hollywood crowd rather than to make great movies.
I think he does it because he genuinely loves to work. I read a piece in the Guardian in which he talked about how he lives to work, especially since breaking out of his drug addiction 20 or so years ago. The reason why he makes so many bad films may simply be that he's unconcerned about whether a film is good; he just wants to work.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
As for Samuel L. Jackson, I loved his cameo at the end of Iron Man but he's really done himself no favors by appearing in a seemingly endless string of critical and box office turkeys, The Spirit being just the latest atrocity. I think he's really worn out his coolness factor and I wouldn't be surprised if studios are starting to see him as a box office liability. Reading between the lines, it also sounds like money is a sticking point and if I were Jackson, I'd be cutting my fees down accordingly if I could be associated with a successful enterprise.
While complaining is somewhat premature...I cant exactly blame fanboys and non-fans alike who're a little preturbed by this bit of news- according to a few sites I seen around.
Marvel wants to build this connecting universe (Ultimate), but they can't even promise that most of the actors will come back to the roles they're playing...sure, its stupid to throw Marvel under the bus so soon, but the cracks are forming and a bad pattern...if you're going to plan something like this, you got to ensure things work out. We've already have recast War Machine...there's fear that Ed Norton wont come back for Avengers...and this of course. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Personally, I'd like to see him reprise the role so hopefully this will all smooth out. If not, life goes on.
And the only reasons why The Spirit hasn't quite gone the way of Punisher: War Zone, which is in the toilet, is partly because of Sam Jackson's major role in it...
Doesn't mean he helped that garbage but the man is still very marketable. Hopefully the comic fan in him will persuade him to do the role.
__________________
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I agree that some more continuity between the movies would be a good thing; its always a pet peeve of mine when different actors play one role from movie to movie and a lot of the time it can just jarring or distracting. Recasting Rhodie was bad enough, I'd hate to see them do the same with Fury.
Still, I don't think Marvel is as indecisive as DC/WB when it comes to these movies and its still very early in the game as far as IM2 is concerned. Also, ditching all sense of continuity really flies in the face of everything they've been saying to this point. I'm sure flops like Punisher and Spirit and the sub-par performance of Incredible Hulk will cause them to be a little more cautious going forward, but I think they have a better grasp of what fans will and will not accept than other studios and hopefully they'll be able to come to terms with Jackson and continue to put out a good product.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
edited January 2009
Rourke Offered Just $250K for Iron Man 2?
Source:Variety January 21, 2009
Variety has posted an interesting article on how the studios are being cautious about spending money for movies in 2010 and 2011. Here's a surprising bit:
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.
$250,000 sounds pretty darn good to you and us, but when you think that Iron Man earned $582 million at the worldwide box office, plus DVD sales, then something doesn't seem right. Let's hope Mr. Rourke ended up getting a much better deal.
Well to me, this seems like alot of moolah because most people have never earned this much in one setting but for an actor like Rourke? It's a little insulting-yes, I know that he's on the comeback trail from oblivion but for the role that he's taking on, he's way underpaid here.
Again, Marvel's business tactics are suspect once more.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Rourke Offered Just $250K for Iron Man 2?
Source:Variety January 21, 2009
Variety has posted an interesting article on how the studios are being cautious about spending money for movies in 2010 and 2011. Here's a surprising bit:
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.
$250,000 sounds pretty darn good to you and us, but when you think that Iron Man earned $582 million at the worldwide box office, plus DVD sales, then something doesn't seem right. Let's hope Mr. Rourke ended up getting a much better deal.
Well to me, this seems like alot of moolah because most people have never earned this much in one setting but for an actor like Rourke? It's a little insulting-yes, I know that he's on the comeback trail from oblivion but for the role that he's taking on, he's way underpaid here.
Again, Marvel's business tactics are suspect once more.
That is a pretty poor salary offer, but I see Marvel's point of view...Iron Man seems to be a pretty lucrative franchise right now, and I don't think anyone is chomping at the bit to see Rourke as The Crimson Dynamo. In fact, I can't say there are too many people chomping at the bit to see Rourke. Period. Marvel, in my opinion, is right to offer a low contract and is in fact asking "how badly do you want to be part of this franchise?" Marvel isn't shooting themselves in the foot by losing Rourke - I think there are other Crimson Dynamo alternatives - but losing Jackson as Fury might be another matter, since the Ultimate version of Fury was essentially modeled after Jackson.
Kind of odd to be reading this since Sam Rockwell pretty much confimed that he and Rourke were signed for IM2 in a recent interview; he even stated they were expecting to begin filming their scenes in April.
250k does seem like a low amount for a name actor but maybe there are other factors at play. For one thing, Rourke has always struck me as something of a method actor who is more concerned with getting interesting roles rather than how much a gig pays and maybe Marvel was counting on that when they made their opening offer. Or perhaps he was offered a percentage of the box office gross (not an uncommon practice) or some other licensing incentives. It might also be that the role isn't particularly large and won't require a lot of time to film his scenes. And I'm sure the current state of the economy isn't helping either.
Regardless, with comics films there is something of a mindset that the characters are usually more important than the actors playing them; especially for the villains, who usually only appear in one film and then move on. Marvel has already shown that its not afraid to recast with its reboot of the Hulk and the dumping Terrence Howard (and maybe Samuel L. Jackson).
Like Darenhat said, I would be more disappointed in the removal of Jackson as he was the model for the Ultimate Nick Fury and would be a good central character to push the buttons and drive the narrative if they ever make it to that Avengers movie.
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
Like Darenhat said, I would be more disappointed in the removal of Jackson as he was the model for the Ultimate Nick Fury and would be a good central character to push the buttons and drive the narrative if they ever make it to that Avengers movie.
I really wish that SMJ would return. Erratic career choices or not, this guy is ULTIMATE NICK . If Marvel had an inkling that they might've reached a stumbling block with some of these actors then they should have had someone cameo as 616 Nick. Jackson's appearance was one of the highlights for me in IM.
I'm holding out hope that they reach an agreement so that this drama could end.
Mrs. Man Face: "You wouldn't hit a lady? Would you?"
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice isUNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
RogueAgentSpeeding in the Tumbler...Posts: 3,676MI6 Agent
This may mean nothing but there is talk that Rourke might not be a done deal for IM2 because why? Marvel being cheap.
This film doesn't need any more negative press than it's already getting as of late. Here's the link:
I've never been much of a Mickey Rourke fan so I honestly can't say I'll shed a tear if he decides to pass on the role. He does have something of a checked history and it could simply be that Marvel is having cold feet about hiring him.
In spite of that, some of the recent rumblings out of Marvel have been worrisome. I don't know how their comics division is doing saleswise but other than Iron Man their movie division hasn't exactly been hitting them out of the park. Incredible Hulk was a box office disappointment and Punisher: War Zone (which they did not directly finance but is still based on their character) was a disaster. That may have caused Marvel to rethink their strategy going forward as things have also been very quiet on the Captain America and Thor fronts lately.
IM2 is supposed to start filming in April and they need to really ramp up production quickly if they hope to make their May 2010 premiere. As such, I'd expect some concrete info on where Marvel is in the next 30-60 days.
I like what Marvel's done with Iron Man:one foot's in Marvel's Silver Age and the other is in their Ultimate universe--and it works.That said,I'm just hoping that the upcoming Captain America film will be closer to the classic Simon/Kirby version, and not resemble the less interesting(for me)Ultimates attempt at recreating Cap.
And for whatever it's worth,I'm probably in a minority because I liked the recent Incredible Hulk movie--and I'm not a big fan of the character.
I like what Marvel's done with Iron Man:one foot's in Marvel's Silver Age and the other is in their Ultimate universe--and it works.That said,I'm just hoping that the upcomingCaptain America film will be closer to the classic Simon/Kirby version, and not resemble the less interesting(for me)Ultimates' try at Cap.
The Incredible Hulk kind of did the same thing, using elements from both series and fusing them into a new universe expressly for the movies. As for Cap, early reports are that the film will be a WWII period piece, most likely ending with...
Cap being frozen and subsequently discovered and revived in the proposed Avengers movie
...so in that respect at least, it should harken back to the older books.
I like what Marvel's done with Iron Man:one foot's in Marvel's Silver Age and the other is in their Ultimate universe--and it works.That said,I'm just hoping that the upcomingCaptain America film will be closer to the classic Simon/Kirby version, and not resemble the less interesting(for me)Ultimates' try at Cap.
The Incredible Hulk kind of did the same thing, using elements from both series and fusing them into a new universe expressly for the movies. As for Cap, early reports are that the film will be a WWII period piece, most likely ending with...
Cap being frozen and subsequently discovered and revived in the proposed Avengers movie
...so in that respect at least, it should harken back to the older books.
Iron Man very cleverly foreshadowed Captain America's future discovery with the quick glimpse of his shield in the ice.And making at least part of the new Cap movie a period piece is definitely the right way to go.However,its proposed title First Avenger:Captain America, leaves a lot to be desired.Now I know that there have been 2 other films called Captain America(Saw them both, and I kind of liked Matt Salinger's turn as Steve-Rogers;he was certainly sincere enough and didn't play the part for camp humor),but surely there's a better title than this First Avenger nonsense*.Yeah,I know,I know...this is designed to herald The Avengers movie, and tell us what CA's place in this group will be,but it looks and sounds as humble as First Justice Leaguer:Superman does--it's awkward and doesn't roll off the tongue with ease.Additionally,for a hero, it's presumptuous and immodest.
=======
*As far as I'm concerned,John Steed will always be the First Avenger.:)
Personally, I think the best possible title for a Captain America movie would be...Captain America. Short, simple, and to the point.
Getting back to Iron Man, its nonsense like this that has me hoping Mickey Rourke doesn't get anywhere near IM2. It might also shed light on why Marvel apparently low-balled him: Mickey Rourke Wants to Wrestle
Actor Mickey Rourke has turned himself into one of Hollywood’s comeback kings with an Oscar-nominated performance in “The Wrestler.” Now, the actor is planning to take on opponents larger and tougher than movie critics — he wants to fight in World Wrestling Entertainment’s WrestleMania match in Houston on April 5.
Rourke made the announcement on the red carpet at the Screen Actors Guild awards on Sunday night. The news was reported by celebrity news outlets Access Hollywood and E! News. Rourke even fit in a bash against pro wrestler Chris Jericho, telling a reporter that he “better get in shape.”
Rourke was stuck in the Hollywood wilderness for years because of on-set troubles and run-ins with the law. He gave a salty acceptance speech when he won a best actor award for “The Wrestler” at the Golden Globes on Jan. 11, and it’s clear that being back in the limelight has not taken the edge off Rourke. The question is: how will he fare in the ring? He is, after all, just an actor.
Considering his career had been in ashes for decades and his past embarrassing attempts at a boxing career, you think he'd show a little more common sense...and dignity.
Marvel should just ignore Mickey entirely.Even if he winds up winning an Oscar, he'd probably still give IM2 problems.That he's resussitated his previously dormant career is very nice--and that's largely due more to director Darren Aronofsky than anyone else.In my opinion,Mickey's not so fantastic a talent that his participation will be an absolute necessity for the success of IM2.
Maybe Marvel should quit sniffing around groups of big-named actors and instead look at a few lesser-known actors who have both the talent and enthusiasm for some of the roles in their movies.Perhaps Marvel believes that the bigger the names in their cast,the greater the prestige for these movies, and that such actors can somehow validate these pictures for the non-comics fans in the audience.
That said,it's not as if the Motion Picture Academy will ever consider a motion picture that's obviously based upon a comic book to be worthy of any serious recognition come awards time...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Personally, I think the best possible title for a Captain America movie would be...Captain America. Short, simple, and to the point.
Getting back to Iron Man, its nonsense like this that has me hoping Mickey Rourke doesn't get anywhere near IM2. It might also shed light on why Marvel apparently low-balled him: Mickey Rourke Wants to Wrestle
Actor Mickey Rourke has turned himself into one of Hollywood’s comeback kings with an Oscar-nominated performance in “The Wrestler.” Now, the actor is planning to take on opponents larger and tougher than movie critics — he wants to fight in World Wrestling Entertainment’s WrestleMania match in Houston on April 5.
Rourke made the announcement on the red carpet at the Screen Actors Guild awards on Sunday night. The news was reported by celebrity news outlets Access Hollywood and E! News. Rourke even fit in a bash against pro wrestler Chris Jericho, telling a reporter that he “better get in shape.”
Rourke was stuck in the Hollywood wilderness for years because of on-set troubles and run-ins with the law. He gave a salty acceptance speech when he won a best actor award for “The Wrestler” at the Golden Globes on Jan. 11, and it’s clear that being back in the limelight has not taken the edge off Rourke. The question is: how will he fare in the ring? He is, after all, just an actor.
Considering his career had been in ashes for decades and his past embarrassing attempts at a boxing career, you think he'd show a little more common sense...and dignity.
I watched WWE 'Monday Night Raw' last night with the boys...and Jericho rose to the challenge, acting all angry and offended that Rourke 'dissed' him, ) and talking some big time trash of his own. If Rourke truly has been getting guidance from the likes of "Nature Boy" Ric Flair and "Rowdy" Roddy Piper, it should be a fun match to watch! B-)
The list of Hollywood and sports personalities who've dabbled in pro wrestling is long and varied, and sometimes the result is quite entertaining. You can be sure that the 'match' between Rourke and Jericho will be well-rehearsed and choreographed.
There's always a 'gimmick' match at Wrestlemania; last year it was featherweight boxer Floyd Mayweather going up against 400 pound, 7 foot-tall Paul "Big Show" Wight...and you guessed it, Mayweather won the match
Looking forward to this one B-)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I love Mickey Rourke and I think that Marvel would be crazy not to hire him. Although I don't believe that Rourke gave the best performance of 2008, I would not begrudge him the Oscar by any means.
There's always a 'gimmick' match at Wrestlemania; last year it was featherweight boxer Floyd Mayweather going up against 400 pound, 7 foot-tall Paul "Big Show" Wight...and you guessed it, Mayweather won the match
Although I'm not the world's biggest authority on boxing, Mayweather was IMO a superb boxer. However I'm not too sure whether he won that match against the wrestler because he's great or because of other factors that went beyond how good he might have been. That said, I do remember a Rocky film in whcih the Italian Stallion defeated a wrestler, so... actually I'm not going anywhere with this. I just rememeber the film. ) I love the Rocky films, so I guess I'm complimenting Mayweather. Anyway, draw your own conclusions.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Although I'm not the world's biggest authority on boxing, Mayweather was IMO a superb boxer. However I'm not too sure whether he won that match against the wrestler because he's great or because of other factors that went beyond how good he might have been. That said, I do remember a Rocky film in whcih the Italian Stallion defeated a wrestler, so... actually I'm not going anywhere with this. I just rememeber the film. ) I love the Rocky films, so I guess I'm complimenting Mayweather. Anyway, draw your own conclusions.
And that gets my vote for Most Incoherent Post of the Day)
Comments
Rourke and Rockwell are the Iron Man 2 Villains!
Source:The Hollywood Reporter, Variety January 7, 2009
Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler) and Sam Rockwell (Frost/Nixon) are in talks to star as the villains in Marvel Studios' Iron Man 2, being directed by Jon Favreau from a script by Justin Theroux, according to Variety and The Hollywood Reporter.
THR says that Rourke would play a tattooed Russian heavy named Ivan who becomes a man with deadly, technologically enhanced coils. Variety adds that Rourke would play the Crimson Dynamo. "He's considered to be an evil version of Iron Man because he battles the superhero in a nuclear-powered suit of armor," says the trade.
Rockwell would play Justin Hammer, a multibillionaire businessman and a rival of industrialist Tony Stark, AKA Iron Man, being played by a returning Robert Downey Jr.
Rourke and Rockwell would be joining a cast that also includes the returning Gwyneth Paltrow and Don Cheadle, who is replacing Terrence Howard.
Another part -- one for Stark's assistant Natasha -- is still open.
The project is eyeing a spring start in Manhattan Beach. Paramount will release the movie May 7, 2010.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Isn't Justin Hammer a much older character than Sam Rockwell? It's been a while since I came across him in an Iron Man comic.
I hope the 'nuclear-powered' Crimson Dynamo suit isn't supposed to some sort of 'enemy of the environment'. It's not a good fit for the Iron Man mythos.
just what are "technologically enhanced coils"?
www.scottacademymartialarts.co.uk
I think that was a veiled and obscure description implying that Rourke, too, would be an armored individual. It appears that Variety deduced that he would be playing The Crimson Dynamo.
That's how I took it as well, darenhat.
I've got to say, I was expecting a villian a little more organic this time around, this metal for metal thing could get kind of stale with Iron Monger being in the first one. That being said, it still could turn out pretty cool.
Dynamo has had many looks over the years but this one was my favorite.
The lastest design's armor (comics) looks much too like the one Stane used in the last film so I expect a look more along this fashion. The coils would eject from his wrists I believe much like the ones on Omega Red...another Russian villian.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
I'm sure that Rockwell will be fine,but as I recall,Justin Hammer was always drawn to look like Peter Cushing(even the name is a giveaway-"just in Hammer").But then again,Downey's Stark is about ten years older than the comic book version.
Y'know, W.G., fanboys on websites all over are sort of sour with the casting of Rockwell and that's fine. My problem with all of this is that the same fanboys are applauding the casting of Ceadle as Rhodie.
Quite frankly, the only thing that Don Cheadle has in common with James Rhodes is race; I cannot see this guy as Stark's best friend...I just can't. That part just screams Jai Michael White with the physique and the voice. Cheadle sounds just as mousy as Howard did.
I hope he tries to bulk up some like he's drawn in the books to be.
I know that Don has the aptitude to deliver but if you're going to pick on one, you may as well the other.
I understand that Favreau wants a younger Hammer probably because Iron Man battled a grandpa in the last one. Rockwell can play sleazy and back-stabbing convincingly enough.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Favreau has said repeatedly that the Mandarin is the overaching villain (kind of like Palpatine in Star Wars) and as such won't be a major factor until a third film.
As for the potential casting of Rourke and Rockwell, I'm intrigued. Rourke is one of the "hot" actors after his turn in The Wrestler and is the kind of guy who will bury himself in the part. And after seeing Confessions of a Dangerous Mind I was convinced that Rockwell could do anything. He's also one of those chameleons that can really change his appearance. The still uncast character of "Stark's Assistant, Natasha" would also suggest some sort of falling out with Pepper Potts during the movie.
It is kind of odd to once again have a business rival and another armored foe in the mix but those were two staples of the comics when I read the books so I guess its to be expected of the films. I'm also sure the filmmakers weren't totally satisfied with the Iron Man vs. Iron Monger climax last time around and want to try to improve on that.
As for Cheadle, he always struck me as being older than he actually is. I was actually surprised to discover that he's about the same age as Downey. He's pretty versatile and I'm sure he'll be fine.
Looks like Favreau and Marvel continue to line up solid talent and move forward with a strong vision for their properties. WB on the other hand is still trying to figure out what shade of red Superman's cape should be for his next movie.
Source:Variety January 14, 2009
Variety is reporting the rumor that Emily Blunt is in talks to play Natasha Romanoff in Iron Man 2. Romanoff is a Soviet super spy who doubles as Black Widow, a beauty in a skintight black costume that is enhanced by high-tech weaponry.
She would join the previously-announced villains Mickey Rourke and Sam Rockwell in the sequel. Again directed by Jon Favreau, the Marvel Studios film sees the return of Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, while Don Cheadle is replacing Terrence Howard.
Blunt's credits include The Devil Wears Prada, The Jane Austen Book Club and Charlie Wilson's War. She also stars in The Wolfman, coming to theaters in November.
The Justin Theroux-scripted Iron Man 2 will begin production this spring for a release by Paramount on May 7, 2010.
I really hope that she gets the part because IMO, she is seriously a beautiful and talented woman. I think she'll make an excellent choice for Black Widow. B-)
This bit of news, on the other hand, is a little disappointing...
No More Nick Fury for Samuel L. Jackson?
Source:Los Angeles Times January 14, 2009
Samuel L. Jackson, who made a cameo appearance as Nick Fury in Iron Man, tell the Los Angeles Times that talks about him returning to the role in future Marvel Studios have broken down:
"There was a huge kind of negotiation that broke down. I don't know. Maybe I won't be Nick Fury. Maybe somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it. There seems to be an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world so [they're saying to me], 'We're not making that deal.'"
I called Marvel Comics and they gave me a statement that suggested that they still want to see Jackson wearing the eyepatch. "Marvel does not comment on active negotiations," was the boilerplate repsonse, but there was that emphasis on the word "active" in the voice of the spokesman who phoned me back.
I hope that they can come to an agreement amicably. I want to see Jackson return for the sequel seeing that Ultimate Nick Fury was created due to Jackson's blessings that his likeness was used.
This is typical of Marvel. X-(
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
As for Samuel L. Jackson, I loved his cameo at the end of Iron Man but he's really done himself no favors by appearing in a seemingly endless string of critical and box office turkeys, The Spirit being just the latest atrocity. I think he's really worn out his coolness factor and I wouldn't be surprised if studios are starting to see him as a box office liability. Reading between the lines, it also sounds like money is a sticking point and if I were Jackson, I'd be cutting my fees down accordingly if I could be associated with a successful enterprise.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While complaining is somewhat premature...I cant exactly blame fanboys and non-fans alike who're a little preturbed by this bit of news- according to a few sites I seen around.
Marvel wants to build this connecting universe (Ultimate), but they can't even promise that most of the actors will come back to the roles they're playing...sure, its stupid to throw Marvel under the bus so soon, but the cracks are forming and a bad pattern...if you're going to plan something like this, you got to ensure things work out. We've already have recast War Machine...there's fear that Ed Norton wont come back for Avengers...and this of course. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Personally, I'd like to see him reprise the role so hopefully this will all smooth out. If not, life goes on.
And the only reasons why The Spirit hasn't quite gone the way of Punisher: War Zone, which is in the toilet, is partly because of Sam Jackson's major role in it...
Doesn't mean he helped that garbage but the man is still very marketable. Hopefully the comic fan in him will persuade him to do the role.
__________________
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
Still, I don't think Marvel is as indecisive as DC/WB when it comes to these movies and its still very early in the game as far as IM2 is concerned. Also, ditching all sense of continuity really flies in the face of everything they've been saying to this point. I'm sure flops like Punisher and Spirit and the sub-par performance of Incredible Hulk will cause them to be a little more cautious going forward, but I think they have a better grasp of what fans will and will not accept than other studios and hopefully they'll be able to come to terms with Jackson and continue to put out a good product.
Source:Variety January 21, 2009
Variety has posted an interesting article on how the studios are being cautious about spending money for movies in 2010 and 2011. Here's a surprising bit:
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.
$250,000 sounds pretty darn good to you and us, but when you think that Iron Man earned $582 million at the worldwide box office, plus DVD sales, then something doesn't seem right. Let's hope Mr. Rourke ended up getting a much better deal.
Well to me, this seems like alot of moolah because most people have never earned this much in one setting but for an actor like Rourke? It's a little insulting-yes, I know that he's on the comeback trail from oblivion but for the role that he's taking on, he's way underpaid here.
Again, Marvel's business tactics are suspect once more.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
That is a pretty poor salary offer, but I see Marvel's point of view...Iron Man seems to be a pretty lucrative franchise right now, and I don't think anyone is chomping at the bit to see Rourke as The Crimson Dynamo. In fact, I can't say there are too many people chomping at the bit to see Rourke. Period. Marvel, in my opinion, is right to offer a low contract and is in fact asking "how badly do you want to be part of this franchise?" Marvel isn't shooting themselves in the foot by losing Rourke - I think there are other Crimson Dynamo alternatives - but losing Jackson as Fury might be another matter, since the Ultimate version of Fury was essentially modeled after Jackson.
250k does seem like a low amount for a name actor but maybe there are other factors at play. For one thing, Rourke has always struck me as something of a method actor who is more concerned with getting interesting roles rather than how much a gig pays and maybe Marvel was counting on that when they made their opening offer. Or perhaps he was offered a percentage of the box office gross (not an uncommon practice) or some other licensing incentives. It might also be that the role isn't particularly large and won't require a lot of time to film his scenes. And I'm sure the current state of the economy isn't helping either.
Regardless, with comics films there is something of a mindset that the characters are usually more important than the actors playing them; especially for the villains, who usually only appear in one film and then move on. Marvel has already shown that its not afraid to recast with its reboot of the Hulk and the dumping Terrence Howard (and maybe Samuel L. Jackson).
Like Darenhat said, I would be more disappointed in the removal of Jackson as he was the model for the Ultimate Nick Fury and would be a good central character to push the buttons and drive the narrative if they ever make it to that Avengers movie.
I really wish that SMJ would return. Erratic career choices or not, this guy is ULTIMATE NICK
I'm holding out hope that they reach an agreement so that this drama could end.
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
This film doesn't need any more negative press than it's already getting as of late. Here's the link:
http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_display/39891#comment_2465792
Batman: "The Hammer Of Justice is UNISEX!"
-Batman: The Brave & The Bold -
In spite of that, some of the recent rumblings out of Marvel have been worrisome. I don't know how their comics division is doing saleswise but other than Iron Man their movie division hasn't exactly been hitting them out of the park. Incredible Hulk was a box office disappointment and Punisher: War Zone (which they did not directly finance but is still based on their character) was a disaster. That may have caused Marvel to rethink their strategy going forward as things have also been very quiet on the Captain America and Thor fronts lately.
IM2 is supposed to start filming in April and they need to really ramp up production quickly if they hope to make their May 2010 premiere. As such, I'd expect some concrete info on where Marvel is in the next 30-60 days.
And for whatever it's worth,I'm probably in a minority because I liked the recent Incredible Hulk movie--and I'm not a big fan of the character.
The Incredible Hulk kind of did the same thing, using elements from both series and fusing them into a new universe expressly for the movies. As for Cap, early reports are that the film will be a WWII period piece, most likely ending with...
Iron Man very cleverly foreshadowed Captain America's future discovery with the quick glimpse of his shield in the ice.And making at least part of the new Cap movie a period piece is definitely the right way to go.However,its proposed title First Avenger:Captain America, leaves a lot to be desired.Now I know that there have been 2 other films called Captain America(Saw them both, and I kind of liked Matt Salinger's turn as Steve-Rogers;he was certainly sincere enough and didn't play the part for camp humor),but surely there's a better title than this First Avenger nonsense*.Yeah,I know,I know...this is designed to herald The Avengers movie, and tell us what CA's place in this group will be,but it looks and sounds as humble as First Justice Leaguer:Superman does--it's awkward and doesn't roll off the tongue with ease.Additionally,for a hero, it's presumptuous and immodest.
=======
*As far as I'm concerned,John Steed will always be the First Avenger.:)
Getting back to Iron Man, its nonsense like this that has me hoping Mickey Rourke doesn't get anywhere near IM2. It might also shed light on why Marvel apparently low-balled him: Mickey Rourke Wants to Wrestle
Actor Mickey Rourke has turned himself into one of Hollywood’s comeback kings with an Oscar-nominated performance in “The Wrestler.” Now, the actor is planning to take on opponents larger and tougher than movie critics — he wants to fight in World Wrestling Entertainment’s WrestleMania match in Houston on April 5.
Rourke made the announcement on the red carpet at the Screen Actors Guild awards on Sunday night. The news was reported by celebrity news outlets Access Hollywood and E! News. Rourke even fit in a bash against pro wrestler Chris Jericho, telling a reporter that he “better get in shape.”
Rourke was stuck in the Hollywood wilderness for years because of on-set troubles and run-ins with the law. He gave a salty acceptance speech when he won a best actor award for “The Wrestler” at the Golden Globes on Jan. 11, and it’s clear that being back in the limelight has not taken the edge off Rourke. The question is: how will he fare in the ring? He is, after all, just an actor.
Considering his career had been in ashes for decades and his past embarrassing attempts at a boxing career, you think he'd show a little more common sense...and dignity.
Maybe Marvel should quit sniffing around groups of big-named actors and instead look at a few lesser-known actors who have both the talent and enthusiasm for some of the roles in their movies.Perhaps Marvel believes that the bigger the names in their cast,the greater the prestige for these movies, and that such actors can somehow validate these pictures for the non-comics fans in the audience.
That said,it's not as if the Motion Picture Academy will ever consider a motion picture that's obviously based upon a comic book to be worthy of any serious recognition come awards time...
I watched WWE 'Monday Night Raw' last night with the boys...and Jericho rose to the challenge, acting all angry and offended that Rourke 'dissed' him,
The list of Hollywood and sports personalities who've dabbled in pro wrestling is long and varied, and sometimes the result is quite entertaining. You can be sure that the 'match' between Rourke and Jericho will be well-rehearsed and choreographed.
There's always a 'gimmick' match at Wrestlemania; last year it was featherweight boxer Floyd Mayweather going up against 400 pound, 7 foot-tall Paul "Big Show" Wight...and you guessed it, Mayweather won the match
Looking forward to this one B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Although I'm not the world's biggest authority on boxing, Mayweather was IMO a superb boxer. However I'm not too sure whether he won that match against the wrestler because he's great or because of other factors that went beyond how good he might have been. That said, I do remember a Rocky film in whcih the Italian Stallion defeated a wrestler, so... actually I'm not going anywhere with this.
And that gets my vote for Most Incoherent Post of the Day