Ed Norton to play Bruce Banner in new Hulk movie

ExtremeSleuth

ExtremeSleuth

Veteran
http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/va/20070416/117675802800.html


Edward Norton to star in upcoming "Hulk" film

Mon Apr 16, 2:13 PM ET

Two-time Academy Award nominee Edward Norton will play scientist-turned-superhero Bruce Banner in a new movie version of "The Incredible Hulk," Marvel Entertainment said on Monday.

The new movie is based on the comic book series telling of the exploits of Banner, a scientist who transforms into a giant green brute, and it follows a 2003 big-budget film called "Hulk" that failed to catch fire with audiences or critics.

Norton, 37, is among Hollywood's most versatile actors, having appeared in more than 20 films including "American History X" and "Primal Fear," both of which earned him Oscar nominations for acting. For the most part, his roles have been in dramas such as 2006's "The Illusionist," making his choice to portray a comic book hero a novel idea.

"His ability to transform into a particular role makes him the ideal choice to take on the character of Bruce Banner/The Hulk," said Kevin Feige, president of production at Marvel Studios.

"The Incredible Hulk" will be directed by Louis Leterrier, a Frenchman whose previous films include the action adventure "The Transporter." The new movie is expected to be in theaters by June 2008, and will be distributed by Universal Pictures.

Universal, owned by General Electric, and Marvel teamed up in 2003 to produce and distribute "Hulk," which was directed by Ang Lee, who later won a best director's Oscar for "Brokeback Mountain."

His version of "Hulk" raked in $245 million at global box offices, but the amount was deemed to be a modest sum given its high expectations and budget of nearly $140 million. "Hulk" also earned generally poor reviews.
Click to expand...

We all agree the first one was craptastic, but would you see the new one with edward norton in it? its kinda peaked my interest a bit.
 
ZFarms said:
We all agree the first one was craptastic, but would you see the new one with edward norton in it? its kinda peaked my interest a bit.
Click to expand...

HULK

AGAIN?

No.

(even though Ed Norton is awesome. NO.)
 
They should get Lou Ferigno! :beer:

lou-ferigno.jpg
 
Ang Lee's Hulk was an interesting failure at least...I don't regret watching it. It had some interesting visuals and some of the Hulk smash action was fun, even if it did go overboard at the end with Nick Nolte's insane rantings. The biggest failure was in Eric Bana's bland performance, which hopefully Ed Norton will rectify. Now that the origin story is over with, they can get into Banner in his fugitive stage, which is more interesting dramatically and what made the TV version work.
 
I agree, the story was awful, but some of the visuals were excellent. Unfortunately, the comic book frames were more annoying than Bana's performance. I love Electra for the same stunning visuals.
 
Batutta said:
Ang Lee's Hulk was an interesting failure at least...I don't regret watching it. It had some interesting visuals and some of the Hulk smash action was fun, even if it did go overboard at the end with Nick Nolte's insane rantings. The biggest failure was in Eric Bana's bland performance, which hopefully Ed Norton will rectify. Now that the origin story is over with, they can get into Banner in his fugitive stage, which is more interesting dramatically and what made the TV version work.
Click to expand...

They may go back to the origin story though...
 
Brandon Rice said:
They may go back to the origin story though...
Click to expand...

That would be a dumb move. At most, have it in brief flashbacks while he's on the run. That's what was great about the Hulk, that you had a guy who was a fugitive, who needed to stay low, but when backed into a corner turned into this thing that blew his cover and smashed **** up. I don't think they'll do it because it didn't really work for the studio the first time.
 
This is shocking. How Universal has pushed this thing forward to this point, a remake sequel of an adaptation, five years after the 'original', which was terrible, is beyond me. Nerds will watch this closely. I'll be interested in what General Public Joe has to say. "Whuuuut dere? N'nother Hulk? I done dere swear there wuz jist a Hulk four square and won year ego!"
 
Norton is by far one of my favorite actors and one of the best actors of his generation. Even if the movie sucks he'll probably carry it on it's back. But it is weird to find out he accepted to do a sequel to a flop. I don't know, maybe he is a huge Hulk fan. I've read that they planned to make the sequel closer to the comic book this time. Louis Leterrier (Danny the Dog, The Transporter) is signed to direct it.
 
If they could get away from the rediculous CGI stuff... just a bit... then I'd give it a chance. The Batman franchise has been all over the place... in my opinion, sometimes retarded, sometimes pretty good.

Maybe I'm getting older, but I haven't enjoyed any of the comic movies as much as I think I will each time a new one comes out. When I was a kid, I loved the tv show... then when I saw the CGI effects in the last flick I knew that I wouldn't even see it... now if it were done right...?
 
I think the problem is that they HAVE to make it commercial. For instance, Hugh Jackman is nothing like Wolverine. Wolverine was a very short and ugly fella, unlike Hugh. They also had to tone down the violence so they could make it accessible for all audiences...and of course, they have to add the pretty faces to please the public. I would imagine Wolverine like a young Harvey Keitel, but that would never fly.

Like that was not enough, the special effects are still not convincing enough, so whenever you see the Hulk you are always too contient it's "a cartoon". They tried to do it old school with the Thing on the Fantastic 4 and he ended up looking like it was made of baby's feces.

You're right though, Mattin, I didn't REALLY like any of the comic book movies lately. It's too bad. When I was young I was an avid collector.
 
I saw nothing wrong with the animation, it was done well. Like I said, the only real problems I saw with it, were the story and Directing.
 
rawfa said:
I think the problem is that they HAVE to make it commercial. For instance, Hugh Jackman is nothing like Wolverine. Wolverine was a very short and ugly fella, unlike Hugh. They also had to tone down the violence so they could make it accessible for all audiences...and of course, they have to add the pretty faces to please the public. I would imagine Wolverine like a young Harvey Keitel, but that would never fly.
Click to expand...

But Hugh Jackman kicked arse in that movie, and Brian Singer made it into a solid, entertaining film - So people both came to see it, and enjoyed seeing it. What matters is how the film turns out, the cast/crew/problems whilst filming are all irrelevant if the movie is good.

I really like Ed Norton, Fight Club and American History X are right up there on my list of favourite films. But I don't understand why they're making this film, and why they've gone with Ed Norton. I mean, they went all dark and moody with Eric Bana - dark and moody is just about all Ed Norton does. Won't they just be retreading 5-year-old ground?

I dunno, we'll have to wait for the film I guess. Ed Norton though... he's a pretty weedy-looking fella, if he doesn't play all dark and moody he tends to come across as pretty insubstantial (Death to Smoochy & Keeping the Faith, anyone?).
 
I know there can be a scene whare Hulk goes spinning though the air and by chance a crane can pick a bomb out of his ass at the precise moment.... Gonna suck!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top