I really like this casting decision! I actually picked Norton one time as I was “fantasy-casting” super hero movies. The reason I gravitated towards Norton is because he kind of has that “puny Banner” build and can play characters who have some complex psychological issues ratling around in his head.
By contrast, Bana struck me as cutting to buff and heroic a figure as Banner. IIRC, another poster had commented that Bana would have made a great Superman which hadn’t even dawned on me, but I latched onto immediately.
Anyway, between this early news on Hulk and the news thats coming out of Iron Man development, I think Marvel’s Production venture is permitting them to make some fine filmmaking choices.
From the linked site, it seems like they’re not going to tell the story of the origins again, but rather continue where the last one left off…with Banner searching for a cure.
SWEET! We just watched* The Illusionist*, and I was, once again, blown away by his acting chops. And my son (14) was just floored when he saw the interview with Norton in the Special Features (out of makeup and costume and with no facial hair.) “That dorky little dweeb was the magician?!” he said. “You have no idea,” I replied, “Wait 'till you’re old enough to see American History X.”
Yep, I think he’s absolutely the perfect choice to play the Hulk. Dorky little dweeb, indeed!
It wasn’t clear to me from the article. Is this a completely new telling of the story, or does it sorta kinda take up from where the last one left off?
To be honest, I can’t remember how the last one ended.
I disagree. I think the property is one of the few characters that Marvel has that even non-comic book geeks know about. And the character has given seed to a number of pretty interesting stories over the course of it’s comic book run.
Although the Ang Lee movie did turn a profit, a lot of people felt that it missed the core of what the Hulk was all about. Marvel recently created a movie production company with the aim of bringing “truer” adaptations of their characters to the screen.
To your point about doing another movie relatively soon after the previous one, they are billing this as a sequel of sorts — even though the cast will be completely different (I’m willing to wager that the modeling of the Hulk will be tweaked as well, since the last CGI creature’s face was modeled after Bana’s face to some degree).
Though I don’t categorically dislike the Ang Lee production, I’m like kurilla, a Hulk move done right is a worthwhile pursuit.
A bearded Banner was in Central (or South?) America providing medical relief when some guerillas started throwing their weight around. Movie closes with a “You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” moment just before Banner is about to Hulk out.
(Yeah, that’s exactly the scene I don’t think he’s old enough to see yet. Hell, I don’t think I was old enough to see it when it came out and I was in my 20’s!)
Erm, he can see anal rape but not a curb stomp? I’m not questioning your parenting skills, but I’m sure that there are far worse scenes in that film. Perhaps the movie is somewhat tamer than I remember. Ah, well. Gives me an excuse to watch it again anyways! grin
Ah, thanks. I remember now. It sounds like this new movie will be sequel-ish. Fine with me. How many people can there be left on the planet who need to see another Hulk origin story? Brief flashback, then let’s get on with the smashing of things.
I do like the casting decision of Edward Norton but the fact that Louis Leterrier is directing and Zak Penn is writing doesn’t fill me full of promise. I guess we’ll see; I’ve been surprised before. Both have done good work in the past but the problem is, when they’re bad, they’re bad.
“You have no idea,” I replied, “Wait 'till you’re old enough to see American History X.”