Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-08-2018, 11:05 PM
 
8,609 posts, read 5,621,225 times
Reputation: 5116

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Renner can be a good actor, but he was still a B-level draw when he did Avengers.
True. He was too new to be anything but.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2018, 05:11 AM
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
3,614 posts, read 1,737,772 times
Reputation: 2740
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt View Post
True. He was too new to be anything but.
I recall reading an article some years back that said he was paid a mere million dollars to appear in the first Thor and Avengers movie. That's nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 06:14 AM
 
28,677 posts, read 18,801,179 times
Reputation: 30998
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGR_NYR View Post
I recall reading an article some years back that said he was paid a mere million dollars to appear in the first Thor and Avengers movie. That's nothing.
That was a lot. Hemsworth only got $300,000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 10:51 AM
 
8,609 posts, read 5,621,225 times
Reputation: 5116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
That was a lot. Hemsworth only got $300,000
Yeah, Renner was actually more of a "name" than Hemsworth at the time. Chris Evans also received $300,000 for Captain America: The First Avenger.

Consider this: Gal Gadot received $300,000 for Wonder Woman (which sources say was augmented by performance bonuses), and that film grossed over 800 million worldwide. Gal got 100K for BvS (and I assume the same for Justice League).

Imagine what Gal's new multi-pic deal looks like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,851 posts, read 5,878,840 times
Reputation: 11467
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt View Post
Yeah, Renner was actually more of a "name" than Hemsworth at the time. Chris Evans also received $300,000 for Captain America: The First Avenger.

Consider this: Gal Gadot received $300,000 for Wonder Woman (which sources say was augmented by performance bonuses), and that film grossed over 800 million worldwide. Gal got 100K for BvS (and I assume the same for Justice League).

Imagine what Gal's new multi-pic deal looks like.
Interesting. To me, it seems like superhero films do best when, at least initially, you don't go with a big name actor (they may become big names after the film). So it's not too surprising seeing the lower salaries for the first films.

That's the reason Ben Afleck never worked for me as Batman. Way too Hollywood. He seemed like an actor playing batman, rather than really taking on the identity of batman (which Christian Bale did a much better job of, other than the voice lol). Robert Downy Jr was kind of the exception, although he was never a blockbuster Hollywood star despite having an active film career. Also, he was down and out (and all but forgotten in Hollywood when they cast him for Ironman).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 12:11 PM
 
8,609 posts, read 5,621,225 times
Reputation: 5116
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone View Post
Interesting. To me, it seems like superhero films do best when, at least initially, you don't go with a big name actor (they may become big names after the film). So it's not too surprising seeing the lower salaries for the first films.

That's the reason Ben Afleck never worked for me as Batman. Way too Hollywood. He seemed like an actor playing batman, rather than really taking on the identity of batman (which Christian Bale did a much better job of, other than the voice lol). Robert Downy Jr was kind of the exception, although he was never a blockbuster Hollywood star despite having an active film career. Also, he was down and out (and all but forgotten in Hollywood when they cast him for Ironman).
Ben's great as Bruce. Bale wasn't an unknown when he took the role. Bale is also the guy who first showed us that one actor could be both a great Bruce Wayne and Batman (his predecessors were either/or, or in Clooney's case, neither), and Ben continued that tradition.

For sort of the reason you cite, Paul Rudd sucks as Ant-Man. I liked him in his comedies, but to bring him in as a superpowered character in an ongoing franchise remains a true headscratcher. He's far too much the goofball. So's Downey, but unlike Rudd he can actually bring some gravitas to his role when it calls for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Maine
22,922 posts, read 28,285,009 times
Reputation: 31249
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt View Post
Is it really too late to recast Scott Lang?
He isn't 1/10th as bad as Ezra Miller's Flash. Miller is just weird in that role.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Elysium
12,390 posts, read 8,159,056 times
Reputation: 9199
Quote:
Originally Posted by personone View Post
Interesting. To me, it seems like superhero films do best when, at least initially, you don't go with a big name actor (they may become big names after the film). So it's not too surprising seeing the lower salaries for the first films.

That's the reason Ben Afleck never worked for me as Batman. Way too Hollywood. He seemed like an actor playing batman, rather than really taking on the identity of batman (which Christian Bale did a much better job of, other than the voice lol). Robert Downy Jr was kind of the exception, although he was never a blockbuster Hollywood star despite having an active film career. Also, he was down and out (and all but forgotten in Hollywood when they cast him for Ironman).
Of course Robert Downey Jr was the anomaly, because he just wasn't trusted and Terrence Howard earned more in his appearance as Rhodey than RDJ did for the first Iron Man movie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Maine
22,922 posts, read 28,285,009 times
Reputation: 31249
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt View Post
Ben's great as Bruce. Bale wasn't an unknown when he took the role. Bale is also the guy who first showed us that one actor could be both a great Bruce Wayne and Batman (his predecessors were either/or, or in Clooney's case, neither), and Ben continued that tradition.
Bale was probably the best Bruce Wayne ever. But I've never heard a sober person seriously claim he was a great Batman. His Dirty-Harry-with-laryngitis portrayal is almost universally mocked. And rightly so.

After seeing ARGO, I had high hopes for Affleck as the Dark Knight. I have been largely disappointed. But to be fair, it's been nothing against Affleck. The recent scripts just don't understand Batman all that well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt View Post
For sort of the reason you cite, Paul Rudd sucks as Ant-Man. I liked him in his comedies, but to bring him in as a superpowered character in an ongoing franchise remains a true headscratcher. He's far too much the goofball. So's Downey, but unlike Rudd he can actually bring some gravitas to his role when it calls for it.
The Ant-Man movies have definitely gone for the tongue-in-cheek tone. They are amusing popcorn flicks. Nothing more. As such, Rudd as Ant-Man doesn't bother me. Ant-Man is one of those characters from which I just don't expect much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2018, 04:56 PM
 
8,609 posts, read 5,621,225 times
Reputation: 5116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
The recent scripts just don't understand Batman all that well.
I know by "recent" you mean BvS. And that material was culled almost panel-for-panel from the comics. It's probably even more "plagiaristic" than Nolan's trilogy (minus Rises), as far as adaptations go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
The Ant-Man movies have definitely gone for the tongue-in-cheek tone. They are amusing popcorn flicks. Nothing more. As such, Rudd as Ant-Man doesn't bother me. Ant-Man is one of those characters from which I just don't expect much.
Ant-Man is, at the least, a glaring missed opportunity. If only they'd opted to treat him like a serious character and not a two-bit Stark who acts like he's mulling over graduating high school or dropping out to go to Acapulco with friends. Imagine getting something like this onscreen (minus the hilarious misspelling of bizarre):

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top