io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 10:09 AM
Tue Dec 8
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
04/09/09
02/22/09
I remember signing petitions, and saying I would boycott the first Daniel Craig Bond film. Of course, I ended up watching it twice at the cinema in the first week - Don't believe the hype!!!
02/23/09
02/21/09
Low-balling Rourke is ridiculous.
02/21/09
02/21/09
02/21/09
Of course, this sounds obvious, but it seems like common sense has left Marvel long time ago. When you consider Elektra and the first Hulk, it makes perfect sense.
02/21/09
02/21/09
02/21/09
Marvel didn't "hire" them.
The studios paid Marvel to let them make movies based on their properties.
02/22/09
02/21/09
It cost $130-180 million (according to wiki.) Who the fuck has (probably) $150-200 mill required for the sequel? In the past they would have no problem because they knew they were guaranteed an audience. Now? I highly doubt that thanks to the rapid shuttering of the world economy so no finance guy worth his Ferrari is going to take that big a risk.
So, they must pare down the budget. The largest budget chunk of a Hollywood movie is the stars, producer and directors cuts. If you can replace the secondary characters with cheaper actors then you will because you're not going to cut the stars (even though they probably should) or the SFX.
Considering the ways things are going, I'm beginning to have doubts that this movie will even be made.
02/21/09
Cutting back on secondary actors is a smart choice. Terrence Howard is not a loss. I prefer Don Cheadle personally. Not sure how I feel about losing Samuel Jackson, as I think I've seen him enough, and he isn't much of a draw to me. Also, he's a bit of an ass IRL.
I just paid $15 for a ticket for Watchmen, so I'd personally like to see some cost cutting in these films.
02/21/09
Honestly, I'd rather see Jackson back than Rourke. Even if Crimson Dynamo is the main villain, Rourke isn't exactly A-list. Yeah, I know, the Wrestler is supposed to be amazing. So go do Brokeback Mountain 2 if you want to show off acting talent. This is an action movie. You don't need Sir Lawrence Olivier to deliver the lines.
02/21/09
Also Pick up a copy of "Once upon a time in Mexico" on your way out.
Come back when you have some perspective.
11/23/08
11/23/08
Agreed. I thought Howard's performance was really weak. I can't believe he was the highest paid actor for the film, when Ghostface Killa arguably did a better job. Zing.
11/23/08
I don't really care what the behind the scenes story is/was...all that matters to me as a moviegoer is that Howard was replaced by a, in my opinion, equal but no better actor who will be, also in my opinion, slightly less believable in the role and therefore breaks continuity for no purpose.
11/06/08
11/06/08
But a nice neutral, "I'm still a cool guy" answer.
11/02/08
Although I agree with drift_marlo: Chiwetel is a great actor.
11/02/08