web stats

CSBG Archive

Terrence Howard Says Marvel Stiffed Him On Iron Man Moneys

Him and Gwyneth Paltrow, too! He’s also not too happy with the raise Robert Downey Jr. is getting for the sequel, according to Us Weekly. He’s still going to see it, though, and isn’t mad at Don Cheadle for taking his role, since he helped him get a part in Crash, nor will he spoil anything despite having read the script. So that’s nice of him. And yes, I just linked to Us Weekly. Deal with it.

33 Comments

Does this guy really think anyone went to see Iron Man because of him? Robert Downey Jr. made what would have been a “Daredevil” caliber movie into something worth watching. He’s a STAR, you’re not. And suprise, suprise, a movie studio isn’t sharing profits with the actors! Hollywood is known for it’s “creative “accounting. It’s not right, but it’s just the way it is. Enough with the sour grapes, dude.

Well, that and it’s Marvel. I mean, they’ve never been big on profit sharing with the people in comics.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

April 23, 2009 at 6:34 pm

And suprise, suprise, a movie studio isn’t sharing profits with the actors!

Actually, a lot of studios do profit share with actors – an actor who is bringing in money is someone they want to like them, so that that actor works with them again.
And after a surprise success like Iron Man, I’m surprised they are willing to mess with success.

It’s not right, but it’s just the way it is.

STATUS QUO!

STATUS QUO!

What a total bitch for getting cut about not getting a share of over 300 million – who does he think he is to negotiate his contract?
He should just be honored to be working in Hollywood!
You know there’s a good chance he’s doing this interview to 1. Make it clear he left over a pay dispute and wasn’t just replaced 2. Make other actors cautious about working for Marvel, in the hope Marvel decides to pay him off to shut him up.

‘It”s not right but that’s how it is’ is about the dumbest excuse for anything.

Well said, Funky.

I’ve never quite understood the disdain some fans have for anyone who feels they were given a raw deal.

I mean, you don’t have to empathize with the guy, but what’s with the Dr. Doom-ish “How DARE he have the TEMERITY to complain?!?” attitude?

There is no way that a company did not “honor a contract”. This is why there are lawyers. If he is just complaining rather than suing, then he is just dumb. There is no lawsuit, so he must be lying. He is just ticked that they replaced him with another actor.

The way I heard it:

He was paid more than the rest of the cast on the first movie, including RDJr.

He was difficult on set. He is, by all accounts, a bit of a wackjob. Remember the interview where instead of promoting the movie he spent it talking about his views on… uh… ‘feminine hygiene’?

Favreau was unhappy with his performance, specifically his bizarrely effeminate reading of many of the lines. This meant wasted time followed by reshoots followed by cutting several Rhodey scenes and reshaping the film.

Now, assuming all of this is true, that’s a pretty bad place to be coming from if you’re looking for a raise! I don’t think Favs/Marvel wanted him back at any price.

Hey Aboynamedposh, where did you hear that from? Is there a link to it? Thanks!

While I’m not sure if the above is true but Terrence Howard did beat his wife.

As usual, the face of Terrence Howard, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. Howard was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Iron Man movie, almost on a level with Robert Downey Jr. himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared.

The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Howard was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Iron Man movie’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Iron Man movie, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching. Somewhere or other he was still alive and hatching his conspiracies: perhaps somewhere beyond the sea, under the protection of his foreign paymasters, perhaps even – so it was occasionally rumoured – in some hiding-place in Hollywood itself.

Totally tangential to the whole “which side to revile” argument, does anyone else find the title “Fighting” for a movie about guys who fight just stupidly unimaginative and lazy? I have to wonder if the person who decided on that title is able to use the bathroom without supervision.

Hey Funky, Terence Howard didn’t bring in the money, RD Jr. did. Nobody I know left the theater talking about how great Terence Howard was in his bit part. And I know that the filmmaker’s were leaving it open for War Machine to appear in the next movie, but there were more important people to take care of before worrying about Terence Howard. And I’m not condoning or excusing Marvel’s behavior. Marvel is being totally cheap. Just look at how they tried to lowball Favreau AND Mickey Rourke. But like Rob said, if they really breached his contract, then he can sue. Don’t come out and try to show how good of a guy you are by restraining yourself from leaking a script on the internet. If these quotes are in fact real, than this guy needs to handle his business better.

Yep, I liked Terrence Howard in Iron Man, but that movie was all RDJr. Frankly, they could replace everyone but him and I’d still want to see it. If Howard got screwed, that’s too bad. He did a good job and you’d think it would be preferable for him to be in the sequel. But as mentioned, if there was a breach of contract he could sue. If he just wanted more money than the studio thought he was worth, that’s another story.

Although to contradict myself a bit, and without knowing any specifics of what Howard’s agreement with Marvel was and what he thinks they owe him, if part of the deal was for him to get a percentage of the net profits, Marvel could be ripping him off. And doing it without breaching any contract. Big stars always get a percentage of the gross, not net, because no matter how much money a movie makes, the studios are able to make it look like it didn’t make any money on paper. It used to be pretty commonplace, way back when. No idea if that kind of thing still goes on, but it could be what Howard is complaining about.

Yeah, most of what aboynamedposh said is what I was hearing too around the time the recasting was initially announced. I don’t have any links on hand, but I’m sure if you dig through enough Nikki Finke columns you’d be able to find at least some of this stuff.

That said, given the stories I’ve heard about Rourke’s antics on the set of The Wrestler, Favreau’s probably gonna have his hands full with this movie too.

Hey Armstrong!, I’m totally with you on the 1984 reference. Give people something to hate while the ironman hype machine perpetuates itself.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

April 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm

Nobody I know left the theater talking about how great Terence Howard was in his bit part.

He obviously doesn’t deserve any money then, and should probably give some of his pay back.

What a prick!

(If it’s such a minor part, why are they replacing him with Don Cheadle?)

And I know that the filmmaker’s were leaving it open for War Machine to appear in the next movie, but there were more important people to take care of before worrying about Terence Howard.

There was the director, the main star, Terrance Howard and Paltrow, and plenty of cash to go around.

I wanna hear more about how Howard was crazy and effeminate and the entire film was reshaped by limiting his screentime. Cause that all sounds super true.

It’s funny, Howard really DID have some awful line-readings at times in that movie, didn’t he?

I don’t think any of it had any effect on his contract, but since I was reminded of it, it made me think, “Wow, he really WAS off at times, wasn’t he?”

Seems sort of fishy without there being a link or reference to the actual contract or a specific clause. In the longer interview linked, it sounds like Downey had a deal wherein he was guaranteed gross points or had a 20/20 set-up, while perhaps the supporting actors had those oh so elusive net points. Or, what jazzbo already said.

If it’s such a minor part, why are they replacing him with Don Cheadle?

That doesn’t make sense to me – inversely, if it is such a major part, why wouldn’t they have made the effort to keep Howard?

I love how the mention of Gwyneth Paltrow, prompts this response from the website?

[QUOTE]See Gwyneth Paltrow’s crazy fashion choices over the years.[/QUOTE]

They’re replacing him with Don Cheadle because they are planning to EXPAND Rhodie’s role in the sequel. And you gotta remember, sometimes it’s not about the money, it’s about the exposure. Superhero movies are huge right now. If Mr. Howard would have swallowed his pride a little, he could have had a much bigger part in the sequel and possibly a spin off featuring War Machine. Then, if he was starring in his own movie, he would have all the leverage he needs to ask for more money. Acting is not all about big paychecks. If you publicly complain everytime you feel like you’ve been nickel and dimed, people will want no part of you.

I was at the Press Junket for Iron Man in the UK and Downey Jr even said there that Howard was the highest paid cast member (it was more in reference to how much of a risk casting him was after his self destructive past than a dig at Howard, but Howard did look a little awkward when he said it.) Howard did look like he didn’t wanna be there there, though he did get some female attention after the Q and A had finished, so it wasn’t a totally wasted trip for him.

Do you remember that time when super-hero movies weren’t that hot in Hollywood & having a total unknown or worse some bad casting choices being made in order to attract people ?? The cheapiness of some movies.

Then guess what ? it’s not the case anymore & that let Marvel & everyone willing to make a super-hero movie with a hot property everybody is watching & keeping an eye for.

Ok Marvel moves can seem harsh or disrespectful but they are only 1.5 movie successful right now & still have to built that huge 4 movies leading to Avengers which can be huge in terms of production costs & the loan is still there.

They are simply being cautious.

For the Rourke, Johanson situation, they can look cheap but like it was said, they don’t really need them. If they secure there participation that’s great if not , they’ll look for someone else. I think that the negociation leverage is in there hands right now. Rourke get out of 20 years crossing of the desert & that’s cool but that doen’t make him bankable, the same for Johansonn: can someone remember me her last blockbuster making her worth investing, she wan’t even the 1rst choice.

As it was said before if there’s a breach of contract where’s the lawsuit ??
I think what Howard is reffering to is some kind of loyalty from Marvel. Good Morning guy it’s Hollywood, no honeymoon last long there.

A couple posters have mentioned it before, but here’s the link to an EW article on Howard’s casting, salary, and difficulties:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20236884,00.html

I guess you can take it with as many grains of salt are necessary…
Me? I hate the discontinuity of the recast, but Cheadle is the better choice.
Here’s hopin’.

“There is no lawsuit, so he must be lying.”

I hope this is some form of sarcasm.

“Totally tangential to the whole “which side to revile” argument, does anyone else find the title “Fighting” for a movie about guys who fight just stupidly unimaginative and lazy? I have to wonder if the person who decided on that title is able to use the bathroom without supervision.”

Yes. Thank you for articulating my thoughts so well. See also: College.

How about removing the “thes” from “The Fast & The Furious” to make “Fast & Furious”? There’s going to be insane confusion at video stores and Netflix over that title.

Yeah, regardless of the truth of all this controversy, Terrence Howard was definitely the worst part of Iron Man. He was doing his typical bland character, and his line readings seemed like someone dragged him away from breakfast for the shot. He was just getting it over with.

Yes. Thank you for articulating my thoughts so well. See also: College.

See also: Zombie Strippers. No wait, don’t.

How about removing the “thes” from “The Fast & The Furious” to make “Fast & Furious”? There’s going to be insane confusion at video stores and Netflix over that title.

All seriousness aside, the confusion comes in after you’ve watched them both and still think you watched the same movie twice. I keed Vin Diesel, I keed.

Is there a source that says that Howard intentionally read his lines effeminately? I thought that was just the way he talked.

The irony of Howard whining about someone not living up to a contract is overwhelming. When he was contracted for eight performances a week of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” on Broadway last year , he found it too exhausting (unlike the 77-year-old James Earl Jones and everyone else on the Street) and only did five.

Terence? Bite me.

Rohan Williams

April 24, 2009 at 7:58 pm

“I wanna hear more about how Howard was crazy and effeminate and the entire film was reshaped by limiting his screentime. Cause that all sounds super true.”

It honestly doesn’t seem that far-fetched. Some of his line readings were awful (and, yeah, I get the effeminate thing), a huge amount of his scenes were left out of the movie (watch the deleted scenes on the DVD) and his interviews can be quite odd.

I mean, it might not be true, but there’s not that much reason to be skeptical, either.

Howard should just shut up. How can he be upset that Downey Jr got a raise when it was Downey Jr that was the star AND one of the main reasons Iron Man was soo damn good? Howard and Paltrow got paid according to the size of their roles.

Studios only share profits with actors/actresses if it is negoiated into their contract.

Marvel is an independent studio and their financing for the films comes from an indepent group so Howard should KNOW that the money will be less. It is the same with Rourke and Scarlett for IM2. I think $250,00 for acting in a movie that will be seen by millions for years to come is a pretty sweet deal. I would take it.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

April 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Howard should just shut up. How can he be upset that Downey Jr got a raise when it was Downey Jr that was the star AND one of the main reasons Iron Man was soo damn good? Howard and Paltrow got paid according to the size of their roles.

Studios only share profits with actors/actresses if it is negoiated into their contract.

Marvel is an independent studio and their financing for the films comes from an indepent group so Howard should KNOW that the money will be less. It is the same with Rourke and Scarlett for IM2. I think $250,00 for acting in a movie that will be seen by millions for years to come is a pretty sweet deal. I would take it.

It’s not just that first sentence, or that last sentence – though they are good examples – it’s every sentence in there that makes you a sad cliché.

And just because I’m a stickler for punishment – studios don’t only profit share if it is in the contract – they often do it or bestow gift payments on talent in unexpected hits/massive hits to try and keep that talent happy and working for them.

Marvel being an independent studio doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means – LucasFilm is an ‘independent studio’ and it’s insanely rich.
If you are taking a pay cut because you’re working for an independent studio the size of Marvel, then I’ve got a bridge to sell to you – especially if you’d be willing to take $250,000 to play what third or fourth lead in a film the size of Iron Man…

Leave a Comment

 

Categories

Review Copies

Comics Should Be Good accepts review copies. Anything sent to us will (for better or for worse) end up reviewed on the blog. See where to send the review copies.

Browse the Archives