Long story short: Edward Norton wanted to be in The Avengers and reprise his role as Bruce Banner. Norton met with Joss Whedon. Meeting went well. Marvel and Norton's people began negotiating a deal. Then Marvel withdrew from the table and decided to recast the role of Bruce Banner/The Hulk, releasing a statement that rather pissed off Norton and his agent.
I remember the rumor that they actually wanted to have a CGI Hulk run around for the whole Avengers film and just dispatch Banner's character entirely. It's not the ideal situation (I personally hate the idea), but it's hard to deny that such an idea wouldn't be on the table in light of this.
MD: You have to win, no matter what. SC: Why didn't you try that this year?
Bana was a weak Banner at best, the corpse of Bill Bixby would make a better Bruce. Phoenix is a good actor, but if they are going to spend money that might as well just get Norton back. Also, since Joaquin still you know, a little not right in the head nowadays or did he get better and no one reported it. Avengers was supposed to be the most unfuckable movie of the next ten years. Now, its starting to make me worry that this will be the death knell for comic book movies. The cool part of this entire project was to have A list stars come back as the same character and make this an epic event. Now, it feels like the Rat's grubby little paws are going to sink the Titanic or at least make it akward. Oh when they say its not about the money, its about the money.
Wait - there's a slashfilm.com? How did I not notice this until now? Can I sue them for real money for gimmick infringment (even though I haven't used said gimmick for over 7 years)?
Originally posted by John Orquiola To which I again reply, WTF? Does Eric Bana have cooties or something? Just bring him back. You don't need a third guy for this part.
Bana's way too hunky to be Banner. No one who looks like Eric Bana is going to grow up feeling outcast and downtrodden.
Feige is an asshole. Norton may have been a bit combative but his ideas turned out a better movie in the true spirit of collaboration. Disagreements along the way ala Claermont/Byrne or Kirschner are much more productive than a singular yes man mentality ala Phantom Menace or Byrne's Spider Man: Chapter One.
No, and it was done mostly as a joke in the comic. Nortn did a good job of giving Bruce the feeling of always being on the run for his life. He also gave him some presence instead of being the small nerd shown in the recent comics. Banner was a nerd, but he was almost as tall as General Ross. Yet, Ross has somehow shrunk in the comics. I think whoever it is, its they better sign an ironclad contract for the sequels or its going to be another one shot actor playing a pretty good part. I also wonder if other high end actors are going to sign with this Marvel/Disney after this. I am sure if the money is right, but this new partnership seems to be a little stingy in the money department with their moves. This Disney executive seemed to pull a Cavs' owner with that statement.
Very disappointed to hear this. Norton is a great actor, and was the best part of the Hulk movie. I can't help but wonder if this is because of his problems with the director over the editing of the previous Hulk movie?
In the back of my mind, I have been afraid Hollywood would screw up this dream project, and I can't help but think this is not a good sign.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Originally posted by kentishVery disappointed to hear this. Norton is a great actor, and was the best part of the Hulk movie. I can't help but wonder if this is because of his problems with the director over the editing of the previous Hulk movie?
I immediately assumed the problem was money (what else?) All reports seem to be that they decided to let him go during negotiating. Marvel has gotten a reputation lately for lowballing their stars and Norton doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would give in. Of course, it doesn't make sense to throw Norton under the bus after that but maybe they knew they were starting to get a reputation and decided to try and spin Norton as the bad guy.
Originally posted by kentishVery disappointed to hear this. Norton is a great actor, and was the best part of the Hulk movie. I can't help but wonder if this is because of his problems with the director over the editing of the previous Hulk movie?
I immediately assumed the problem was money (what else?) All reports seem to be that they decided to let him go during negotiating. Marvel has gotten a reputation lately for lowballing their stars and Norton doesn't seem like the kind of guy that would give in. Of course, it doesn't make sense to throw Norton under the bus after that but maybe they knew they were starting to get a reputation and decided to try and spin Norton as the bad guy.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that neither side is exactly telling the truth here.
Marvel needs to do whatever it takes to get Norton unless he has some ridiculous demand like that Banner has to get more screen time than the Hulk.
The Hulk already suffered from the reboot (which would have probably performed on par with Iron Man had the Ang Lee version not existed). They don't need to further the confussion with using yet another actor.
Norton has a bad reputation going all the way back to "American History X" of trying to hijack the creative process.
As a condition for his participation in "The Incredible Hulk," Norton gave input on the script and was made producer. When Marvel decided to go against the wishes of Norton and its director and cut the film down to a more manageable length (say what you want about artistic freedom but it's a movie about the goddamn Hulk and they wanted to make it two and a half hours long), Norton pitched a fit. He subsequently refused to do any publicity whatsoever for the film, costing it millions.
Say what you want about Marvel, but Norton's not a team player. You can have creative differences, but to go out of your way to completely tank a project you and others have invested millions in does not endear you to a great many people.
Also, I have to re-iterate, it was a movie about the goddamn Hulk. I love comics, but this isn't arthouse cinema.
Originally posted by Deputy MarshallNorton has a bad reputation going all the way back to "American History X" of trying to hijack the creative process.
As a condition for his participation in "The Incredible Hulk," Norton gave input on the script and was made producer. When Marvel decided to go against the wishes of Norton and its director and cut the film down to a more manageable length (say what you want about artistic freedom but it's a movie about the goddamn Hulk and they wanted to make it two and a half hours long), Norton pitched a fit. He subsequently refused to do any publicity whatsoever for the film, costing it millions.
Say what you want about Marvel, but Norton's not a team player. You can have creative differences, but to go out of your way to completely tank a project you and others have invested millions in does not endear you to a great many people.
Also, I have to re-iterate, it was a movie about the goddamn Hulk. I love comics, but this isn't arthouse cinema.
(edited by Deputy Marshall on 13.7.10 2018)
I agree and think that was a big problem with Ang Lee's Hulk. He was trying to make some sort of statement (does anyone get the last 15 minutes?).
Thread ahead: NEW ON DVD 7/27/10: 324 releases coming out Tuesday Next thread: the Big Bang Previous thread: Fantasia 2010: Black Lightning (2009) Russia
Bob Saget is awesome in this. It's just amazing to watch, and hear the things they come up with. Definitely some things in it that will make your eyebrows raise a bit. And Gilbert Gottfried is awesome in it.