|
There's a duck in the room
There's a duck i-OWWWW (04-18-2012, 12:10 PM)
|
#51
He doesn't exactly have the personality required for an ensemble film like this. If you see behind the scenes for this film, you can see how the cast genuinely like and get along very well with each other. That likely won't happen if Ed Norton was in the cast. He's well-known to be prickly and uncooperative with director and cast members.
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 12:50 PM)
|
#53
Ed Norton is known for being difficult to work with IIRC. |
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 01:35 PM)
|
#56
![]() Sure seems that way to me. And no, it's cause Marvel hired him to redo the script and have editorial input, but then changed their mind when they were paranoid they'd get another Ang Lee film instead of an action oriented one. Doesn't matter as Ruffalo is doing a great job. Point is, Feige does make mistakes sometimes. He was notoriously tight on the budget for this film. Whedon at one point had to go ahead with something and hope they liked it and realize they'd have to spend some money or fire him. He ended up getting the extra cash he wanted. |
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 01:40 PM)
|
#57
|
|
There's a duck in the room
There's a duck i-OWWWW (04-18-2012, 01:53 PM)
|
#60
http://www.nerve.com/entertainment/2...eative-control He's the kind of actor who wants to have complete control of many aspect of the film process, which would have been fine if the director and producer are in collaborative state of mind but if they are not, then it'd be just conflict after conflict. These kind of reputation don't just stick on an actor for no reason. It builds up over the course of their career. Also asks yourself as to why he hasn't got many film roles lately despite having an arguably good talent in acting. Also, note that the actors listed on that page are famously known to be hard to work with and not surprisingly their career hasn't exactly been illustrious lately.
Last edited by Replicant; 04-18-2012 at 01:58 PM.
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 02:28 PM)
|
#62
For that kind of reputation, why would Marvel even consider it? As far as why he hasn't gotten many film roles, that's a no brainer. He's more interested in directing/script writing, which is why he did a comicbook film in the first place. He's been working on Motherless Brooklyn which he'll be writing/directing/starring in. Everything else has been projects for friends or things he's really interested in. Besides, Norton and Letterier got along great. There's plenty of reports where collaborated well, it's when Marvel decided to get involved and become a third director that things went to the crapper quick. |
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 02:39 PM)
|
#64
http://io9.com/5681811/is-marvel-nic...ngers-to-death
Quote:
|
|
There's a duck in the room
There's a duck i-OWWWW (04-18-2012, 03:06 PM)
|
#65
Moreover, it's not the first time Norton insinuated himself into production role while he's supposed to be *acting*. If he wants to do writing then he should do it properly via the right channel. It's unprofessional for an actor to refuse promotional work for a film just because your script wasn't accepted. Think about it. His role in the film first and foremost was an actor. Not a scriptwriter. Being an actor means he's obligated to do all the promotional work associated with it and that's not writing the script.
Last edited by Replicant; 04-18-2012 at 03:11 PM.
|
|
MrArseFace
(04-18-2012, 03:18 PM)
|
#66
looking forward to it though, enjoyed the other movies leading up to this - probably seeing it next Thursday after work. |
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 03:29 PM)
|
#68
Re: Norton
Marvel hired him to star and to rewrite Zak Penn's script. When the movie went into post, Norton lobbied for final cut. Marvel said no because: a) that wasn't his job, and b) Norton's cut would have been 2.5 hour character piece, while Marvel wanted a shorter, leaner action movie. When Norton didn't get his way, he refused to promote the movie. The producer that Norton butted heads with wasn't actually Kevin Feige, but some other guy whose name I can't recall and who ended up leaving Marvel a little bit later. Norton was open to returning for the Avengers since the main guy he didn't get along with was gone, but Marvel didn't want a repeat of the situation especially since on a movie like the Avengers where there's already a bunch of variables in play as it is. That, and Ruffalo was Whedon's pick for Banner anyway. |
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 03:35 PM)
|
#69
The fact is, he was hired to rewrite and have editorial input. So it's hardly "just being hired to act" Marvel was very unprofessional, and as we've seen repeatedly, they penny pinch and upset cast and directors alike. Or to put it your way, it's not the first time Marvel has made some stupid decisions. As far as promotions go, that's amusing revisionist history. CGI wasn't finished until a week or two before release date. This is because Marvel received a longer film and freaked out and went nuts arguing with Letterier and Norton over what to cut. As a result, more time was spent editing and arguing than promotion. Also, Norton had to move onto other projects, so you can hardly place all the blame at his doorstep. Marvel knew when they hired him he had other commitments as well. Marvel doesn't want to take ANY of the blame for a Hulk movie as you'll see by Fiege continuing to make decisions like not making another Hulk film despite the character stealing the show in this one. Regardless, you're flat out wrong about Norton being only an actor. Did you even see the original screenplay?
Again, Norton was brought on to rewrite the script, which is hardly just being hired as an actor. I suppose all actors who choose projects wisely like Daniel Day Lewis and Leonardo DiCaprio are just primadonnas who don't work well with others. Whereas guys who will sign onto projects without reading them aren't. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. But if that's how you see things, no amount of reasoning is going to convince you otherwise. |
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 03:37 PM)
|
#70
But still, Feige has made some poor decisions in the past, while excelling in others. And yeah, Marvel and Whedon both wanted Ruffalo, and they're right in this case. |
|
Look!
A crack addict with a tag! (04-18-2012, 03:48 PM)
|
#72
I don't see how anyone can watch this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_GTN...layer_embedded ...and not get excited for this movie. |
|
There's a duck in the room
There's a duck i-OWWWW (04-18-2012, 04:00 PM)
|
#73
The last time I checked, DDD and Leo are still working in lots of quality projects whereas the only thing resembling good quality in Norton's future plate is the next Bourne film.
Last edited by Replicant; 04-18-2012 at 04:04 PM.
|
|
(04-18-2012, 04:02 PM)
|
#74
Yeah, guys. Lets discuss a film that nobody will see for another 3 weeks.
|
|
(04-18-2012, 04:06 PM)
|
#79
|
|
There's a duck in the room
There's a duck i-OWWWW (04-18-2012, 04:13 PM)
|
#81
Technically that's not true since I'm seeing it next week and it opens wide next week as well for most countries other than US and Japan. But I don't understand why we have to confine our discussion about the film within a week before the movie's release.
|
|
(04-18-2012, 04:14 PM)
|
#82
No, I agree with you. I was being facetious in regards to the guy complaining about fanboy ranting.
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 05:08 PM)
|
#86
Great timing! I go to Thailand on the 4th May and it opens there on the 1st. Just have to try and not see it here in Australia before then..
Oh - and 3D? Pfft.. I'll be watching it in 4Dx! We saw Fright Night and the latest Mission Impossible movie here and it's great fun 4Dx cinema at Siam Paragon in Bangkok
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 05:14 PM)
|
#87
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 05:21 PM)
|
#90
I think Norton would have been a bigger draw and that would have created a little more excitement for the film. I wanted him in the film and was disappointed he was not in it. That being said I think Ruffalo will do a good job. None of us know all the details behind what happened with Norton and and Marvel studios so I'm going to refrain from blaming one side or the other.
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 05:22 PM)
|
#91
|
|
Member
(04-18-2012, 05:53 PM)
|
#100
Looks like The Daily Telegraph broke the review embargo:
Quote:
|