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…

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 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.

Terence? Bite me.

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.

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

I hope this is some form of sarcasm.

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’.

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.

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

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 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?”

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.

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.