jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (9 posts)

Mickey Rourke out of "Expendables 2?!?"

  1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
    Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago

    Well according to a few articles online, it looks like Mickey Rourke might be out of "Expendables 2."  Although it still has yet to be officially confirmed publicly by both Rourke and the studio.  Plus, imdb.com still has him listed to be rumored to reprise his role.  However, according to the various articles that claim he won't be returning, it's because the money he was being offered was not enough for him to want to reprise his role.  Plus, he seems to be already interested in another part in an upcoming film called "Seven Psychopaths", that's set to be directed by Oscar winning director/writer Martin McDonagh.  Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?  Do you think it'll be a mistake if he doesn't come back?  Or do you think he's doing the right thing if he does leave?

  2. Dale Nelson profile image31
    Dale Nelsonposted 5 years ago

    Nice Die Hard pic.

    I reckon that they all played much of a cameo role in the first movie save Jay Statham and Sly Stallone.
    Shocked there was no Muscles from Brussels considering that Dolph got a part.

    But, yes I think his role was critical to the success of the first part and he could always do a cameo like Willis did and do his takes between filming the other movie.

    Looking forward to it either way.

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks. I'm glad you like it.  Anyway, I hope Rourke does come back too as well, even if it's only for a cameo, as he was the only actor in that film that tried to act outside of uttering cliche one liners.  However, if he doesn't, then I can certainly understand.  Besides, I doubt seriously he would've gotten much screen time in the sequel with an even larger cast; thus if he has an opportunity to play as a lead actor in another movie, then he'd be a fool not to take it though.

  3. Johnjfernando profile image59
    Johnjfernandoposted 5 years ago

    Its too early to say either of the take. I think at the end of the day that movies with a promise of winning an oscar are more significant because your recognition status is more linear than if you just do an action movie. However, Expendables did not make box office expectations with its first installment and its something that needs more buzz with more plot structure, rather than lining up big names to a project as a feature for the next big thing.

    1. Johnjfernando profile image59
      Johnjfernandoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I hope Rourke can somehow come back though.

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      actually the first film had an estimated budget of 82 million on imdb, and it was reported to have gained a total profit of $266,159,621.  By the way, for an "R-rated" film that's a lot, as "R-rated" movies don't typically make as much as lower rated films.  So your logic is flawed to assume that the last "Expendables" didn't do that well.  Sure, among critics it didn't do as well, and maybe some audiences that expected more.  However, the box office results were still there, and it was a hit.  Just saying.

      However, I do agree with the fact that picking a film that's directed by an Oscar winning director is a lot more enticing for an actor.  Plus, from what I read according to various articles, he'd be starring in "Seven Psychos" versus a mere cameo role that he would've gotten in the sequel to "Expendables" anyway.

    3. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As for it having a clever plot, you are aware that the last film is supposed to be a throwback to all the over the top action films of the 80's and 90's where uttering cliche one liners, buff dudes firing guns, and things that go boom were enough to create a box office hit, right?  No, like Schwarzenegger's "Commando", the "Expendables" aren't supposed to be taken seriously for a complex film, as it's made purely for entertainment value alone.  Anyone that expects a shakespearian plot from a film that has all these old school action heroes, then all i have to say is..seriously? 

      No, let's face it.  the exact reason the last movie made lot of money was because of it's all star cast gimmick, as most people that saw the movie will tell you that it's just a light hearted action flick that takes us back when action movies didn't have to have complex plots like "salt" or the "bourne" films.  No this is just another over the top action film that feature stunts that border on the line of the damn near f***ing ridiculous to the freaking impossible, and plenty of things that go boom. 

      Granted, I'm not saying that I don't appreciate strong stories over cheap thrills, but that's basically what the "Expendables" happens to offer..cheap thrills, and an all star cast.  It's an over the top action film in ilk of older 80's action movies like "Commando" where you just have to accept it for what it is.

      1. Johnjfernando profile image59
        Johnjfernandoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        'Alas!' Great point. I never though of it like that.

  4. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    well if 7 pyscos is half as good as I just imagend it then its ok!