Sam Jackson's Fury Over Being Fired as Nick Fury

Seriously, I know everybody loves the Marvel Comics movies, but have those guys begun to lose it? Ever since Iron Man opened in May, there has been a crumb trail of bad or at least surprising moves that lead back to the comic book powerhouse. Look at the way they hemmed and hawed with Jon Favreau's deal to direct Iron Man 2, how Don Cheadle was introduced as Rhodey in the sequel before announcing Terrence Howard wouldn't be back, or replacing the writers for that sequel for no obvious reason. Witness the very existence of a Thor movie, which could prove monumentally troubling, as well as the decision to hire Kenneth Branagh to direct it. There have been some strokes of genius - and maybe that's what tempers the really big question marks - but Marvel should be in a better position on a lot of these deals. And now, Samuel L. Jackson tells The Los Angeles Times that he may not be back as Nick Fury. The actor fumed about "an economic crisis in the Marvel Comics world" on Tuesday, and referring to the entire Marvel slate through 2011, added that "somebody else will be Nick Fury or maybe Nick Fury won't be in it." Of course, Nick Fury has already been introduced and is a key member of the entire Avengers cycle of films Marvel is working so hard to establish, with the big payoff coming in a couple of years. So what's the problem? Money, plain and simple. Why you wouldn't pay Samuel L. Jackson is beyond me, unless he's asking for $40 million plus points on Avengers. But even if he is, don't you negotiate? Or is that what all this is?

"I saw Jon Favreau at the Scream Awards and we had a conversation. He said, 'I hope things are working out for you because we're writing stuff for you.' Then all of a sudden last week I talked to my agents and manager and things aren't really working that well."

Of course, the financial burden of a film like The Avengers is half the reason you can barely rationalize making it at all. As Geoff Boucher of The Times points out, think of the salary considerations for Robert Downey, Edward Norton (if the Banner character splits time with The Hulk), the actors playing Thor and Captain America, plus Don Cheadle, Sam Jackson, and whatever other heroes or heroines are involved. That budget might be the biggest we've ever seen. Just in the five salaries we know you're looking at $50 - $75 million, conservatively. But if you're going to do it, you can't do it half-assed. And dumping Jackson at this point is half-assed.

Comments

[Chompa]

Yeah, that's crap. You are dead on about that being half assed. With an ensemble movie like Avengers, that has pre-established actors, you can't go cheap and get no-names to take their place.

And replacing Samuel Jackson of all people? When they wrote Ultimates, they reimagined Fury as being played by Jackson.

The only thing I can think that would work for me is going back to the original caucasian Nick Fury if they are going to swap out actors. Let's just do that if they won't get Jackson.

[Asana]

I agree on the money factor and it's a shame because if done right it could potentially be kickass. If the deal is going to happen for Avengers the only way it seems possible is if the big name stars take a pay cut. From Marvel's standpoint, there just may not be enough of a return they can foresee to layout so much cash up front. Not every superhero flick is going to pull a Dark Knight in box office receipts and the Avengers aren't nearly as well known as Batman anyway.

Marvel could go all out on Avengers but I think they'd have to pare back some other projects which would probably be a good idea. However, there's a certain mentality at least from what I've seen in interviews with Avi Arad that Marvel wants to get property after property on the screen. It's a glut the market approach that's certain to waste money and see more worthwhile films shortchanged but it's their money to burn. It's just sad they're not burning it more wisely.

[Willy]

What a misleading headline. He isn't fired.

[P]

Samuel L Jackson is an overrated excuse for an actor. Hopefully they get someone competent to play the part of Nick Fury in the role.

[dao]

sam jackson was at the end of iron man for 30 seconds. big deal if he gets replaced. he's in 20 million movies every year anyway

[Pete Marvel]

Maybe the problem is with the greedy, egotistical actors who think they are irreplaceable and that the movie will not go ahead without their spectacular presence. I read one article which stated that Sam Jackson would only do the Star Wars movie if he had a PURPLE light saber, thereby making him the only one with that color. What an ego, I would have replaced him in Star Wars too.
It is these types that are ruining it for us Comic book fans.

[Mulivalea]

I see your guys point on how they couldn't put the best out there for all of our viewig pleasure. But seriously, who has got the money to put up 50 to 70 million just to have the "actors" not to mention the bills for a kick ass special effects team. To combine all of the greats to make a movie like the avengers, would be awesome. But the downside is who really has the money? If the DC/ Marvel were smart about it, they would give the actors a base pay that's pretty low. But promise a cut from the earnings at the box office. Give the majority of the money to the effect team, writers and the behind the sceans guys. Then after it make quagillions in the box office, dish the cuts out to the actors. I mean come on, everyone and their grandma is goin to see everyone of these movies. I know i'll be in line.

[air_110016]

Hey, why doesn't Marvel hire Tom Cruise to play "NICK FURY". Did you see him in "Valkyrie" using the eye patch. He looks like Nick Fury!!!