Samuel L. Jackson No Longer Bringing Fury for ‘Iron Man 2′

Posted by Adam Sweeney (adam@filmschoolrejects.com) on January 26, 2009

Sam Jackson as Nick Fury

Iron Man fans were in a frenzy when they heard the film sequel wouldn’t feature Terrence Howard. How will they react now that Samuel L. Jackson appears to be getting short-changed also?

In an interview with IGN, everyone’s favorite BAMF discussed the possibility of him making a return as Nick Fury in Iron Man. It doesn’t look good, and this time the blame may be on Marvel Studios.

“I would love to do it. I’m not sure that they would love for me to do it. It seems as though they’re having money problems,” Jackson said with a grin. He continued by saying, “they’re caught up in the economic crisis also. Iron Man 1 didn’t make much money, so they can’t afford to pay the rest of us anymore.”

Jackson is likely aware that Iron Man made over $582 million worldwide at the box office. Even with a $140 million budget, there is no way that Marvel didn’t bank off of it. Newsflash to Marvel; Samuel L. played Shaft, he doesn’t like getting the shaft. You can watch the clip here. It would have been great to know how much Jackson wanted in relation to what Marvel was offering.

The comments are contrasting from previous thoughts laid out by the Academy Award nominee, which is a shame. Jackson spoke with MTV in July about his much hyped cameo at the end of the Iron Man credits, explaining that he was, “looking forward to going to work soon” as Fury, likely appearing in myriad Marvel comic films including Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor and The Avengers. That all changed once negotiations started.

Marvel is trying to steer clear of high salaries for actors, a notion given weight after they replaced Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle. They also have reportedly only offered Mickey Rourke $250,000 to take a role as a villain, and are expecting Jackson to take a pay cut as well. We’re all excited to see an Iron Man sequel, but could Marvel be killing the momentum of the first film by undercutting their talent? We sure hope not. They’ve done a great job of taking ownership of the Iron Man and Hulk franchises in 2008. It’d be a shame to watch them throw it all away. Maybe Marvel execs should start wearing WWTSD bracelets, as in “What would Tony Stark do?”

Should Samuel L. Jackson take a pay cut? Who’s in the wrong here; the actors or Marvel Studios?


Read more articles by Adam Sweeney

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • royalewithcheese
    not having jackson as nick fury is bullcrap. economy this, negotiations that, i don't care: the decision is bullcrap
  • Edub
    This is sort of old news, but depressing nonetheless. Not sure what Marvel is doing but they need to get their act together and fast.
  • SIRreal
    I don't know who is really to blame but in my opinion, the actors need to stop with their inflated ego's and accept that budgets aren't the end of the world. If I were an actor, I would rather play a super fun part for a little cheaper, than to let the studio replace me for someone who is undercutting me. I love and respect Samuel L Jackson, but I'm sure that he could drop his price a little bit to play a character that he was "looking forward to." They should have started long term agreements when they work in essential characters now a days. When the movie industry world is based upon sequels and remakes maybe the studios should just assume that they wont come up with anything more original and sign these actors on for two or three movies and call that it. I would rather a movie remake live up to my expectations then a studio ruin some of my favorite super heroes wait till the remake of the remake comes out.
    On the other hand, if the studio really doesn't have enough money to make the sequel everything it should be, then maybe they should wait. How many disappointments can you dish out pre production before you start realizing that your bottom dollar is going to be affected. I think that if more fans would show there dedication to the original cast and boycott sub-par sequels, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
    Maybe I am just an Idealist. The movie moguls wont listen to me anyways.
  • blackmanjew
    less sam jackson is what the world needs...
  • Why would they not put Sam in this film. Im sure his brief role in Part 1 will be more popular then the entire Dragon Ball movie..
  • I've heard this won't be with just Marvel Studios...many studios aren't shelling out the regular amount of cash to their talent...it's all because of the looming actors strike and economy....I'm sure they would have some sort of point system or backend percentage....It's understandable for a studio to lowball the investment if the film could stop production for a strike....they would loose a lot more money if they shelled out all the money upfront...
  • 790
    LOL, Blackmanjew!

    It does seem that Marvel is seriously stepping on their own tail here.
  • I have a feeling JAckson is asking for leading role type numbers while his character only warrents a minor role in each film.

    And I'm not sure I'm too upset about this, Jackson can sometimes be too over the top, maybe a lesser known actor will be better in the role
  • (insert video link) Hehe (insert laughter aimed at our editor).
  • Sorry, man. I can't do everything sober.
blog comments powered by Disqus