Norton "Fired" From Avengers Cast

[Grissom]

Yeah Norton took the high road, good for him, I'm starting to worry for Marvels future films now that they are taken over basically by Disney. Norton gave a solid performance in The Incredible Hulk and I hope they find someone that can give it the kind of weight Norton did. I even liked Bana's performance for the most part too.

[gordonblu]

I think I'm one of only 3 people who actually liked the original Hulk over the sequel/reboot. Norton's performance is one of the only things I liked about the Incredible Hulk though.

[The Joker]

I even liked Bana's performance for the most part too.

Same here, Grissom.

Despite not quite fitting the profile one typically thinks of when picturing Bruce Banner, I too think Eric did a fine job in portraying Bruce. As Bruce Banner in the Ang Lee film, is played as a man with not only bottled up emotions, but also defined as man with deeply repressed rage.

Which definately works in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the Hulk!

[gordonblu]

Absolutely! The first film was about why he was the the hulk. As a result there was a more psychological aspect to the film that the second was lacking (despite Norton's portrayal).

[phantom stranger]

There's still a .000001% chance this is all one big publicity stunt.

[thecolorsblend]

Geez, way to go Marvel. Two Hulk actors burned through just like that.

Dude, I love ya, but c'mon. How is what happened with Eric Bland... sorry, Bana Marvel's fault?

In general, clearly nobody else is going to speak up for Marvel so it's on me.

As I understand it, Norton signed up for TIH and once the ink was dry, he began demanding to rewrite the script. Production was pretty far along at this point so Norton's page one rewrite mostly had to be confined to changing dialogue and such as too much prep had already been made to alter the plan now.

Seriously. What the hell gives Ed friggin Norton the right to redo a script? He's Ed Norton, not Marlon Brando.

Also, as to Marvel's apparent cheapness, again, THEY'RE MARVEL. They're not WB, Paramount or some other big studio who have hundreds of millions of dollars to play with. Marvel, when you come down to it, is still basically a start up company. They're having to instantly grow their fledgling company to handle the big boy game they're now playing, and they don't have the same type of money that other studios do. Does that justify the paltry offers they allegedly offered Jon Favreau, Sam Jackson and Rourke? Honestly, I say hell yeah it does. If a bargain can be had, they'd be fools not to take it.

Marvel wants to make the best movies they possibly can with the limited resources they have available. Frankly, I think they're to be congratulated for the job they've done up to this point.

[The Dark Knight]

Geez, way to go Marvel. Two Hulk actors burned through just like that.

Dude, I love ya, but c'mon. How is what happened with Eric Bland... sorry, Bana Marvel's fault?

I suppose I should have worded it differently. But the main feeling I was trying to convey was that it's now two films, two lead actors gone. Not that I'm overly concerned about that, since I have slim interest in anything The Hulk.

But just to clarify this - wasn't Ed Norton getting paid MORE than Iron-Man Robert Downey Jr?!

[The Joker]

In general, clearly nobody else is going to speak up for Marvel so it's on me.

As I understand it, Norton signed up for TIH and once the ink was dry, he began demanding to rewrite the script. Production was pretty far along at this point so Norton's page one rewrite mostly had to be confined to changing dialogue and such as too much prep had already been made to alter the plan now.

Seriously. What the hell gives Ed friggin Norton the right to redo a script? He's Ed Norton, not Marlon Brando.

Heh. In your 'speaking up for Marvel', you seem to leave out some vital details that should have been addressed in your assessment.

So let's look at this again.

Reportedly, Norton had problems with the "Incredible Hulk" script in the VERY early stages of his negotiations with Marvel. Obviously it wasn't a winner of a script, atleast not in Norton's opinion, and his signing on only came about AFTER Louis Leterrier and Marvel allowed Norton to rewrite sections of the script he felt was flimsy, and in addition, work with screenwriter Zac Penn to include more origin and character development.

Did Marvel know what they were doing? Certainly appears to suggest so. I mean, we would certainly hope so, right? If Marvel truly wanted Norton, it was immediately known that there were going to be some changes. To which Marvel, and this is one of those vital details, amicably agreed to.

Of course, when the film had finished filming, Marvel then insisted (conveniently enough) that nearly 20 minutes to be cut, which resulted, not surprisingly, in Norton reportedly being dissatisfied with this decision, and the final cut.

The movie came out. It did reasonably OK considering the expectations were certainly not as high as the 2003 film, though future Hulk sequels were put on the back burner by not only Marvel, but from a coy Ed Norton as well.

Then of course, earlier this year, Norton began suggesting in interviews to have warm to the idea of reprising his role as Banner. Much more so than his lukewarm responses in 2009, and negotiations were reported to be underway. Ultimately, a meeting between Norton and Avengers director Joss Whedon was also reported to have taken place. Which was said to have ended with both leaving the meeting excited and ready to move forward. Interestingly enough when looking at this in retrospect.

Only, no. That wasn't the case at all! Shortly thereafter, Marvel issued their statement of Norton being essentially 'difficult to work with', with Norton addressing the situation in a decidedly more classier manner. Followed up with Marvel supposedly pursuing Joaquin Phoenix. Which, if true, is likely not going to be successful, but I won't even bother pointing out the obvious irony there.

Sooo ... is it a B&W case of Norton being 'difficult to work with' ala Marlon Brando, and Marvel simply having zero interest in having him return since his participation in "The Incredible Hulk"? Well, from what has been reported, no.



Not by a long shot.

Also, as to Marvel's apparent cheapness, again, THEY'RE MARVEL. They're not WB, Paramount or some other big studio who have hundreds of millions of dollars to play with. Marvel, when you come down to it, is still basically a start up company. They're having to instantly grow their fledgling company to handle the big boy game they're now playing, and they don't have the same type of money that other studios do. Does that justify the paltry offers they allegedly offered Jon Favreau, Sam Jackson and Rourke? Honestly, I say hell yeah it does. If a bargain can be had, they'd be fools not to take it.

Marvel wants to make the best movies they possibly can with the limited resources they have available. Frankly, I think they're to be congratulated for the job they've done up to this point.

Marvel Entertainment/Studios isn't WB. Nor are they Paramount, or Sony. That's correct. Marvel, as of August of 2009, are now apart of Disney's corporate umbrella. Unlike in 2008, Marvel Studios are not exactly 'the little engine, or in this case, studio that could' anymore. In short, Marvel, now under Disney, are simply legally honoring Marvel Studios' preexisting deals that Marvel Studios previous has with other studios' (like Paramount with Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and Avengers) comic book movie adaptations. While at the same time suggesting publicly that someday those characters could possibly return to their fold. Where in the future, Disney will  serve (or atleast would love to serve) as the sole distributor of Marvel's films.

As far as actor/director paydays go, it's not exactly like Samuel L. Jackson, Mickey Rourke, and Jon Favreau are commanding Will Smith pay days per movie. Offering men like that, who are obviously talented in what they do, negligible sums to participate in their films, is a bit telling in Marvel's method of negotiating. Typically, actors/actresses/directors/ect who are successful in their profession, or are experiencing a successful 'comeback' are usually offered sums that reflect the Studio's perspective of their overall value to the movie in question. It's basically an acknowledgment to their talents. And after the success of 2008's "Iron Man", this attempting to offer Favreau, who delivered a bona fide blockbuster, a sum that he apparently didn't think reflected his value to the sequel to return to the director's chair was not only incredibly risky, as there are a number of negative variables that could have happened as a result, but could have easily been seen as insulting as well.  The same method was applied towards Rourke/Jackson, but thankfully, and to the overall quality and success of the film itself, these men called BS on Marvel, which resulted in (not surprisingly) a higher offers to come on board "Iron Man 2".

Which ultimately benefited Paramount, and Marvel very, very well.

[phantom stranger]

Some guy named Mark Ruffalo is apparently going to be the new Hulk.

Marvel's casting choices lately have been rather uninspiring. But this guy probably won't get much screen time anyways...

[johnnygobbs]

Some guy named Mark Ruffalo is apparently going to be the new Hulk.

Marvel's casting choices lately have been rather uninspiring. But this guy probably won't get much screen time anyways...

Mark Ruffalo is a pretty high profile actor who has appeared in some major films, including Collateral, Zodiac and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.  His last big role was alongside Leonardo Dicaprio in Shutter's Island, so he's obviously a favourite among some pretty top-flight directors.  I have every faith that he will do a good job as Bruce Banner/The Hulk, as I believe both Eric Bana and Edward Norton did with the part, and suspect that since he is a 'name actor' the character will have a decent degree of screen-time.

However, I do agree that the situation with Marvel casting one actor after another in the same role is becoming ridiculous and will not pay off in the long-run when they want to establish themselves as a major studio, or at least a major studio derivative since they will end up with a bad name among filmmakers and actors.