Mickey Rourke Won't Be in ‘Iron Man 2’?

Rourke himself reveals that he will not appear in the sequel.
BY |
Mickey Rourke Won't Be in ‘Iron Man 2’?

It seems that a superhero sequel will not get a wrestler after all. According to New York Magazine, Mickey Rourke revealed that he won't be playing a role in Iron Man 2.

"Right now, we're not doing Iron Man 2," Rourke told the site. It was widely reported that Marvel Studios came in with a lowball offer of $250,000 for a role in the film and apparently negotiations have broken down.

Rourke recently signed on to appear in Sylvester Stallone's new film, The Expendables as well. We'll certainly keep you posted on any news revolving Rourke or Iron Man 2.

Iron Man 2 was released May 7th, 2010.

Best of the Web

25 comments

Want to join the discussion?

Facebook Twitter
  • shelley • 6 years ago

    Whatever the reason it is still disappointing to me, I was looking forward to him appearing in the film.

    reply

    • chad-vital • 6 years ago

      "Man, Chad, you obviously, have no idea of the word responsiblity. Someone who thinks they can live off of 250,000. Yeah, maybe if you were in a third world country. Not here."

      Umm killerman, don't speak. Seriously. You're making pypebomb look good. What the hell does responsibility have to do with living off of 250,000? I barely get 6,000 a year and I get by just fine. I don't need a fancy job. I'm content. Unlike you. Who apparantly thinks 250,000 is not a lot of money. Yeah maybe if you're Paris Hilton's brother or something and you are just rich that's chump change. Be smart. Stupid people bug the sh*t out of me. You make me shake my head that's how f*cking retarded you are killerman. And if I could live off of $250,000 wouldn't that mean I'd be budgeting the money and what's that word that has to do with that... OH I REMEMBER IT'S CALLED RESPONSIBILITY, dumbass. Clearly if you blow $250,000 and can't live off of that, you're irresponsible with money. So that must mean that is you. Even if you had kids (which I don't cause I have a brain and know to wear protection), you could live off of that. You couldn't go buy expensive sh*t obviously like an expensive house but if you bought a cheap house and BUDGETED your $$ you'd be fine. It hurts you to think doesn't it?

      reply

      • raoulduke33 • 6 years ago

        bummer

        reply

        • rudy • 6 years ago

          oh well.

          reply

          • taberjohnson18 • 6 years ago

            Okay Pypedong, that is my opinion, but if we are discounting the value of opinions, then there really is no way of rating films in terms of quality. So, assuming we don't all want to live in your world of films never being gauged, let's look at the numbers:

            Exhibit A)

            93.5% fresh at rottentomatoes . com critic/community aggregator, based on 223 critic reviews and over 5000 community reviews with an average rating of 8.15/10. Not bad.

            Exhibit B)

            The Dark Knight, which only the errant naysayer would call a poor film (yes it had flaws, but that doesn't make it instant sh*t) averaged 92% fresh and had an average rating of 8.2.

            Were they the same kind of film? No, but I would say that both have these movies warrant sequels. You seem to be focusing SOLELY on the plot, of which you have given a fairly pedestrian analysis anyway, when any sitcom writer could tell you that performances can make or break a film. Downey Jr. delivers a great performance that basically guides the whole movie. The script wasn't bad, but it would have bombed with most other actors.

            If the best you can do is accuse me of being gay for thinking an ACTOR did a good job ACT-ing, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your shortsightedness about films.

            It must be embarrassing for you that your ass is burnt out an bloody from rejection letters from actual studios. Unless you aren't any sort of filmmaker and you just think you're clever using a pseudo-studio as your avatar. Then it's burnt from retard-iarrhea.

            reply

            • memo17 • 6 years ago

              I'm with Chad,but it would have been nice to had seen him in this.

              reply

              • killerman200 • 6 years ago

                Man, Chad, you obviously, have no idea of the word responsiblity. Someone who thinks they can live off of 250,000. Yeah, maybe if you were in a third world country. Not here.

                reply

                • chad-vital • 6 years ago

                  Sh*t, I'd do it for $10 dollars lol. What actors need to realize is that if you are in a superhero movie, your career will sky rocket. I mean look at the people's who careers are strong as sh*t now. Robert Downey, Christian Bale, Tobey Maguire, Aaron Eckhart, Hugh Jackman, Ian Mckellen, and even Liev Schreiber is getting noticed now that he is Sabretooth (and that movie isn't even out yet lol). These are just a few examples. You can't go wrong with being in a hero movie. Unless it somehow tanks, but it's highly unlikely Iron Man 2 would.

                  reply

                  • chad-vital • 6 years ago

                    $250,000 is a low ball number? I could live off of that for the rest of my life lol. Good lord actors ask for too much if that's a low number.

                    reply

                    • tasalin • 6 years ago

                      o come on, nobody said u were ugly pypie... I think u have misunderstood our comrade henson.

                      but u know what leave the skull on... :). we never know what's underneath.

                      reply

                      • taberjohnson18 • 6 years ago

                        killerman, 6 months ago people were still afraid to touch Rourke with a ten foot stick. I don't blame Marvel/Universal for being wary. And "Oscar Nominated" has different levels, it's not just a checkpoint.

                        F*ck it, they can get a lot of people to play Whiplash OR Crimson Dynamo. Downey Jr. Is the powerhouse, if they lost him I'd be worried.

                        Pype Bomb...do you even understand that the movie was based on a comic book? They have loads of stories they can tell, most of them are actually pretty damn good. There have been few movies as true to the character WHILE entertaining as Iron Man.

                        reply

                        • killerman200 • 6 years ago

                          What the f*ck is wrong with Marvel? 250,000 for a Oscar nominated actor. Get the f*ck out of here. I would've taken that as an insult if i were him. Wow, what's he gonna do? A car and a pack of slim jims.

                          reply

                          • twistedsmile • 6 years ago

                            I wont.

                            reply

                            • narrator • 6 years ago

                              This is very disappointing but I guess that's what Marvel gets paying such a low price. Hopefully thy up the ante.

                              And Twisted, I missed you. Lolz, just don't go all gay on me. :P

                              reply

                              • twistedsmile • 6 years ago

                                The important thing here is that TWISTED is back.Who missed me....anybody.....anybody at all.....don't be shy....I know you missed me......come on.

                                reply

                                • fadedskyjeff • 6 years ago

                                  Good.

                                  reply

                                  • annoyingfilmcritic • 6 years ago

                                    Marvel has been low balling their cast: Howard, Rourke maybe Favreau initially. I hope they pay Rourke what he's worth.

                                    reply

                                    • ed-wood • 6 years ago

                                      I really hoped he would be in there. You never know, this could change.

                                      reply

                                      • vampire2000 • 6 years ago

                                        I dunno. Cheadle will do good, but I prefer Howard, myself. As for this, I don't really know anything that Rourke has done, except for playing Marv in "Sin City," so I don't know too much about his acting chops to be disappointed, but it sucks nonetheless.

                                        reply

                                        • revilolee • 6 years ago

                                          Hopefully they'll work something out.

                                          reply

                                          Popular Stories

                                          Latest Headlines

                                          James Gunn Introduces ‘Belko Experiment’ Cast

                                          James Gunn Introduces ‘Belko Experiment’ Cast

                                          Director James Gunn has revealed new cast members for ‘The Belko Experiment’ including Tony Goldwyn, John Gallagher Jr. and Michael Rooker.

                                          By Brian Gallagher | 3 hours ago

                                          18 Shares0 Comments

                                          Around the Web

                                          Popular Movies