Marvel Cinematic Universe General Discussion 3: Not Dead After All

[Shryke]

 

Here is my point... RDJ movies make far in excess more than what they are paying him when compared to other Marvel movies. The studio is making far better money having him than if they were to not have him. It doesn't matter what he is making, or what he made in the past, Disney would hire him again in a minute and not regret the decision in the least. His movies draw at the box office because he is RDJ. 

 

The same can be said of any actor with a draw including Charlize Theron. Marvel will pay anyone what they are worh at the box office and not bat an eye because they know that not only will the movie they are making be better, but it will also make more money.

 

You are confusing cause and effect here.

 

Marvel cast RDJ and then Ironman did insane numbers so RDJ came back and demanded more (I actually think on several occasions) and at that point RDJ had all the leverage so they gave it to him.

 

The brand is the initial draw. Once the movie does good though, the actor becomes a part of the brand and so a part of that draw.

 

They will, I think, try and cast someone recognizable but not a huge star so they can get them for cheaper.

[Howdyphillip]

 

You are confusing cause and effect here.

 

Marvel cast RDJ and then Ironman did insane numbers so RDJ came back and demanded more (I actually think on several occasions) and at that point RDJ had all the leverage so they gave it to him.

 

The brand is the initial draw. Once the movie does good though, the actor becomes a part of the brand and so a part of that draw.

 

They will, I think, try and cast someone recognizable but not a huge star so they can get them for cheaper.

I don't think so... I think that five of the top six Disney Marvel movies all star Robert Downey Jr. is because he puts butts in seats. The numbers pretty much confirm my story. Captain America was a much more recognizable character before this franchise started, but Iron Man numbers on average are almost $100 million more per movie than that of Captain America's average box office take. The simple explanation is that RDJ is a much bigger draw than Chris Evans. 

 

I personally think that Marvel did start out trying to cast smaller named actors and let the brand speak for itself, but now that they have learned how much more money an actor can put in the till, will be casting accordingly. I think getting Rudd for Antman, and Cumberbatch for Dr. Strange, and Lily for Wasp are all strong indicators I am right.

[The Anti-Targ]

 

The Anti-Targ, on 22 Jul 2015 - 7:18 PM, said:

So, here's a thing. Katie Holmes is actually pretty tall 5'9". Would she be a reasonable option for Captain Marvel?

 

 

Would she dye her hair?

 Well since she's happy to cut her hair I don't imagine a blonde wig is too much of a problem to arrange.

[The Anti-Targ]

Gwendolyn Christie has been mentioned, but this pic of her looks so much like Gwendolyn that it's spooky. 

Yeah, that was me first time I think, and she's still my first choice for the role. But I'm looking for names that have a wider audience familiarity than just GoT fans.

 

Charlize Theron, Gwendoline Christie, Katee Sackhoff or Emily Blunt would all be fine choices to play Captain Marvel (though Theron is probably out of Marvel's price range). Whoever they get needs to have some presence about her. She doesn't need to be big or physically intimidating necessarily, but she needs to give off the impression she could stare down a grizzly bear and make it slink away.

I think you missed a word in that phrase, tightwad comes to mind. Shit, a multi-$billion movie franchise, owned by a multi-$billion company can afford to pay any actor's asking price if they want. It's just that their arses are so tight their shit comes out like spaghetti.

 

I really don't want shorties as Cpt marvel, no one under 5'9" as far as far as I'm concerned. So that puts Blunt, Winnick and Sackoff out for me. Christie, Theron, Famke Janssen, Katie Holmes, Saffron Burrows, Uma Therman, Blake Lively. Lots of names in lots of price brackets who can stand eye to eye with the boys without camera trickery or a soap box. Personally I would have loved to see Lucy Lawless, but she wasted her MCU connection with a bit part in AoS Grrrr!

[Shryke]

I don't think so... I think that five of the top six Disney Marvel movies all star Robert Downey Jr. is because he puts butts in seats. The numbers pretty much confirm my story. Captain America was a much more recognizable character before this franchise started, but Iron Man numbers on average are almost $100 million more per movie than that of Captain America's average box office take. The simple explanation is that RDJ is a much bigger draw than Chris Evans. 

 

I personally think that Marvel did start out trying to cast smaller named actors and let the brand speak for itself, but now that they have learned how much more money an actor can put in the till, will be casting accordingly. I think getting Rudd for Antman, and Cumberbatch for Dr. Strange, and Lily for Wasp are all strong indicators I am right.

 

No, the numbers don't confirm your story. Because you are missing that for RDJ Ironman was a breakout hit. Ironman is what turned him into a superstar. The success of that film is what let him turn around and demand better terms from Marvel. When Marvel hired him, he was not anywhere near the profile he is now. That's part of why they hired him.

 

Also Rudd is not a huge name either. He's a mid-level comedic actor.

 

This is what Marvel has done. That's how they kept costs down as they started rolling out the MCU.

[Kalbear]

Iron man also wasn't expected to be such a hit. That was before their plan to have the whole universe together and were content to make mediocre but somewhat good selling movies like the hulk.

[The Anti-Targ]

13 12 posts until we get to make a new thread to usher in Phase 3!

[The Anti-Targ]

 

No, the numbers don't confirm your story. Because you are missing that for RDJ Ironman was a breakout hit. Ironman is what turned him into a superstar. The success of that film is what let him turn around and demand better terms from Marvel. When Marvel hired him, he was not anywhere near the profile he is now. That's part of why they hired him.

 

Also Rudd is not a huge name either. He's a mid-level comedic actor.

 

This is what Marvel has done. That's how they kept costs down as they started rolling out the MCU.

RDJ has been a name that attracts an audience for a long time. He wasn't as bankable in 2008 as he is now, but he was definitely a box office draw. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK_Y5LjSJ-Ythe Iron Man trailer from 2008. It's all about RDJ, he carried the trailer. Iron Man (and Sherlock) was his resurgence, not his break out.

[Howdyphillip]

 

No, the numbers don't confirm your story. Because you are missing that for RDJ Ironman was a breakout hit. Ironman is what turned him into a superstar. The success of that film is what let him turn around and demand better terms from Marvel. When Marvel hired him, he was not anywhere near the profile he is now. That's part of why they hired him.

 

Also Rudd is not a huge name either. He's a mid-level comedic actor.

 

This is what Marvel has done. That's how they kept costs down as they started rolling out the MCU.

Rudd is making nearly $3 million per picture now. If you told me the star of Ant Man would be making this much on average 10 years ago, I would have told you that you are out of your mind.

 

I also don't quite understand what you are arguing. Yes, in phase 1 Marvel didn't pay as much to the lead actors up front (Downey made $500k and Evans made $300k), but they back loaded the contracts and both actors wound up making millions on the projects. With the success of the movies, they are now getting the best names that they can and they are not worrying about the cost as the model has already been established that big named actors actually make the studio more money even if they pay them ridiculously high amounts. 

 

Iron man also wasn't expected to be such a hit. That was before their plan to have the whole universe together and were content to make mediocre but somewhat good selling movies like the hulk.

Iron Man was actually the first movie in phase 1, and it was intended to be so. That is why the end credit scene had Nick Fury teasing the Avengers. Marvel also projected it to be their largest draw of the independent movies and that is why it was released first.

[red snow]

If Iron Man had been a flop we'd have probably just got the Hulk and that would have been it. Or the Avengers certainly wouldn't have happened. The argument is actually correct on both counts regarding RDJR

 

RDJR was well known but he hadn't had a big film since his imprisonment. If I recall his behaviour blacklisted him in a lot of Hollywood. He'd had some good indie roles. It wasn't the kind of thing that would let him demand a huge salary for a film. Otherwise he'd have asked for it. Marvel were lucky in that they were able to showcase an A-list actor but RDJR was never a bog draw to the film at the time. Once it was a massive hit though Marvel knew he'd bring people to the cinema and so did RDJR which is why he was able to negotiate a far better deal. And in fairness he still is the lynchpin of the MCU - Marvel really can't do without him. It sounds like sacrilege but I think any of the other first avengers could have been recast and it would have still worked but a non RDJR Iron Man would have been a risk. That's reflected in the ongoing salaries of the cast.

 

None of the phase 2/ phase 3 actors are "big" names. Some of them are recognizable but all of them are probably going to be signing a multi-movie contract for under $5 million. Paul Rudd, Chris Pratt and co, Cumberbatch (arguably one of the bigger actors but still not a major hollywood player), Chadwick Boseman, Tom Holland and whoever winds up as Captain Marvel or the inhumans.

 

Marvel is cunning in how they spend their cash. If they can get old thesps on board they do as the amount of screen-time is less = less money. Voice over actors cost less but you still get the brand recognition (Cooper, Diesel) and Villains are often where they can splash out as they are either in a single film. I suspect there's a reason hiddleston was an unknown when he was cast as a recurring villain.The final category is your Sam L Jackson style roles (let's throw Thanos, and Del Toro in there too) where they usually have about 5-10 mins screentime per film. They get more per minute but that's manageable.

 

Any of the actors signing on as a lead are getting multi-film deals and exposure. The fact they are getting so much screen time means they aren't going to get paid as much per minute.

 

An argument could be made that spending money on a big name usually gets more attention. In the case of Marvel the most important name on a film is "Marvel Studios". Unless it's an Iron Man or Avengers film in which case a lack of "RDJR" could be a problem. If GOTG can pull in a billion with the cast it had - shelling out 10 million + extra is money that doesn't need to be risked (even if you could argue that extra 10 million could have brought in another 50 - why risk it).

The other thing is that the casting has been excellent so far. I'd much rather have RDJR than Tom Cruise as iron Man (he was a fan favourite at the time) or any A lister over Chris Hemsworth. It gets trickier if an A lister does seem like a perfect fit for a role though.

 

My way of looking at it is that as soon as Marvel starts spending money on big names to helm their films, I'll be worried that the genre is plateauing and they are having to make up for diminishing returns with the equivalent of a holographic cover on the comic.

[The BlackBear]

RDJ is not going anywhere until these movies start to slip away at the box office. He will keep taking $40-$50 million a year because why would he not do so?

I always think surely there's such thing as enough money. He clearly doesn't need money anymore, so the incentive it offers is reduced.

[red snow]

I always think surely there's such thing as enough money. He clearly doesn't need money anymore, so the incentive it offers is reduced.

 

We just think that because we don't have much. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the more people have the more they want. His lifestyle probably becomes more expensive relative to his salary.

 

What's more interesting to me is how much he's getting for Civil War in comparison to Chris Evans. Considering it's a Captain America film (on paper) I'd be a little annoyed if my co-star was making 5-10 x what I am. Although these things come around - I'm sure there was a rumour that the guy playing Rhodey in Iron Man 1 was paid more than RDJR

[GallowKnight]

What's more interesting to me is how much he's getting for Civil War in comparison to Chris Evans. Considering it's a Captain America film (on paper) I'd be a little annoyed if my co-star was making 5-10 x what I am. Although these things come around - I'm sure there was a rumour that the guy playing Rhodey in Iron Man 1 was paid more than RDJR

He was, at the time Terrence Howard was a far bigger name than RDJR. The reason he didn't come back for Iron Man 2 was because his salary got decreased in order to get RDJR more money.

[Myrddin]

Truthfully, if they can get Robert Redford and Glen Close in their movies (albeit smaller roles), the sky is the limit, casting-wise.

 

It all comes down to negotiations.

[Rhom]

He was, at the time Terrence Howard was a far bigger name than RDJR. The reason he didn't come back for Iron Man 2 was because his salary got decreased in order to get RDJR more money.

Which would be pretty funny if Lucious Lyon from Empire was playing War Machine in Infinity War Part 1. :lol:

[The Anti-Targ]

 

 

 Voice over actors cost less but you still get the brand recognition (Cooper, Diesel) and Villains are often where they can splash out as they are either in a single film. I suspect there's a reason hiddleston was an unknown when he was cast as a recurring villain.

Speaking of, as a Brad Pitt fan I would live to see him play a one movie villain. Leo DiCaprio too. They're too big of a names to be able to headline a multi-film superhero, but they could play a super who dies. Really, it is about time a hero died (Quicksliver doesn't count because he spent most of the movie being a villain). The good guys shouldn't win with the only casualties being the baddies and innocent bystanders. Of course Steve Rogers is supposed to die at some point for Bucky Barns to take over. But they need to build up audience support for Bucky, which makes the end of credits scene for Ant-Man very interesting.

 

Steve dying isn't a spoiler for the MCU is it? I mean that's pure speculation in terms of the movies. Unless Chris Evan's becomes too demanding in terms of his pay there's no reason Steve Rogers can't stay alive until the whole fascination with the MCU completely dies out and the movies start tanking. Then in 10 or so after the franchise dies out years when someone decides the MCU can make a successful come back they'll wheel out Evans one last time as the ageing cap who does die and a newly cast Bucky Barnes takes over, which would be the first movie of the new Avengers Phase 1.

[red snow]

Speaking of, as a Brad Pitt fan I would live to see him play a one movie villain. Leo DiCaprio too.

 

It would be cool to see either of those play a villain. There's so many to pick from, I'm sure Marvel could afford to use either in a one-vilain deal. It's not like they couldn't recast if they want them in future.

Either of them could have a go at Kraven the Hunter - who'd be ideal if they adopted "Kraven's last hunt".  Maybe Maximus in "inhumans"? Graviton?

Either of those actors would make a fun Mr Sinister in an X-movie.

 

As for comic spoilers maybe being film spoilers - it's all up in the air. I think the fact the actor playing Bucky Barnes has signed on for more films than Steve Rogers suggests it's a strong possibility. That and the characters that were introduced into Cap2.

[Jack Bauer 24]

 
We just think that because we don't have much. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the more people have the more they want. His lifestyle probably becomes more expensive relative to his salary.
 
What's more interesting to me is how much he's getting for Civil War in comparison to Chris Evans. Considering it's a Captain America film (on paper) I'd be a little annoyed if my co-star was making 5-10 x what I am. Although these things come around - I'm sure there was a rumour that the guy playing Rhodey in Iron Man 1 was paid more than RDJR

Evans wouldn't even be getting what he is for Captain America if it wasn't for RDJ to begin with.

[AndrewJ]

I agree with a lot of what others have said. But one extra factor to consider...

 

Whether people agree with it or not, there is a perception in Hollywood that female-led action movies don't succeed. The Hunger Games and Divergent movies have hopefully done something to battle that perception. But it's clear that Marvel have been on board with it until now (still no Black Widow movie, or any others with a female as the lead).

 

So... maybe they'd want to shell out a little more for a bigger name to try and combat this perceived issue?

[trickster]

Evans wouldn't even be getting what he is for Captain America if it wasn't for RDJ to begin with.

 

Evans would not be getting what he's getting for non-Marvel films now if he was not Captain America. All of these actors (may be other than Scarlet Johansson) have received massive boosts in terms of their profile,salary etc. because of their involvement with Marvel movies. So the actors have more or less recouped the perceived loss in salary to be honest.