What’s With Marvel Alienating Actors?

He was trying to get them to release his cut, and was kind of being a bitch about it, by all reports. That's why there was talk of him being fired before the movie was made. He kept trying to take it over. Also, the movie was a success. It made $170 million (total box office of over 320 million) in theatres alone.

I totally agree, Josh. Norton was Banner to me and I am totally disappointed in a company that is a major part of my childhood (to adulthood) behaving like dicks.

Marvel brags about movie continuity but just couldn't claim casting consistency. Too sad. They've been firing awesome actors!

Norton is a prententious ego maniac. He deserved writing credit on Hulk about as much as I did. Class act? Give me a break.

Let me start by saying, I respect your opinion and am not trying to change it. I may not share your views, but it is refreshing to hear someone who has an opinion different than mine.

That said, I have to disagree with your depiction of Norton's Banner. I thought that he brought a quirky awkwardness to the character that was missing from Eric Bana's attempt (though I think Bana is a great actor). There is passion in Norton's portrayal of the character that is both Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster. And, I liked the evolution of the character through the movie, from his struggle to suppress the monster and cure himself at the beginning of the film to his acceptance and desire to control him at the end. This does keep in tone with Bruce Jones' run on the title.

As with the changing of writer/artist teams on a given title, the movie's representation of these characters is how the writer, director, actor, and producers see said character. Though it may seem cut-and-dry how a character would or wouldn't act, it is filtered through the perceptions of the creative team that is bring the project to the screen. So far, the popular perception is that the Hulk is a carnal, primitive force of nature. While I don't really dig the 'Intellectual Hulk', I would love to see a creative compromise: a smarter Hulk who becomes more savage and less intelligent as he becomes more angry.

Just of the sake of asking, who do you think would make a good Hulk? I am interested in your perspective, considering you were not impressed with either Bana or Norton.

@SullyE,

If you noticed I only congratulated Comicsaredead for expressing his point of view; which was much more defined the second time than in his initial post. I actually preferred the Norton version, (which I said) yet I do try to be patient.

Today I am not a big fan of the Carmine Infantino/Adam West era Batman. I loved it as a kid because nothing else existed. When I look back at that time period, I am more inclined to admit I enjoy the Neal Adams comic’s version. Though Infantino, as an artist is still pretty spectacular. I hope you can tell my review is greatly focused on the dramatic portrayal of the character not the comic’s presentation in that same time period. In fact I consider the current “Brave and the Bold” cartoon series’ depiction of Batman obsessed with that period. I can’t even watch though I did see part of a show once.

Today I admit I appreciate the Frank Miller/Kenneth Nolan/Christian Bale era Batman. In other words I can tolerate the Bixby/Ferrigno/Norton Hulk until a better version eventually appears. Unfortunately we have not seen it yet; maybe the Avengers movie will help this along. Yet I agree with Greame, Norton’s treatment by Feige was disrespectful and disgusting.

Thank you for correcting me. I never saw the Mark Steven Johnson’s Directors cut of Daredevil even though I thought performances by Jennifer Garner, Colin Farrell, and Michael Clarke Duncan were exceptional. I will regretfully retract the statement that Affleck should carry all of the weight for that Daredevil depiction. I am sorry. I hope you are happy.

I will respond to what you said next in my next post.

Having worked at Marvel for over five years, and leaving just recently, I can tell you that the corporate culture there regarding EVERYTHING, from negotiating contracts with freelancers to responding to requests for office supplies, is “EFF YOU, WE'RE MARVEL”. They know that the properties they own and the opportunities they offer are extremely valuable and desirable and they use that to establish a position of power and in turn bully the hell out of everyone. Which is totally their right, but in all honesty, I'm actually surprised we don't hear more of this.

…this is news to you? That Marvel mistreats its talent? Really?

See the comments above regarding Jack Kirby.

“Look over there!”

We're talking about Marvel recasting roles in its movies, Comic Relief. What does DC's recent behavior with minority characters have to do with the price of wang in China?

I most definately agree about Cheadle, he is an awesome actor, but doesn't have the look of Rhodey like Howard does.

Marvel Publishing, Inc., commonly referred to as Marvel Comics, is an American company that publishes comic books and related media. Marvel Entertainment, Inc., a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, owns Marvel Publishing.

Marvel counts among its characters such well-known properties as Spider-Man, Iron Man, the X-Men, Wolverine, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Captain America, Daredevil, the Punisher, Ghost Rider, Doctor Strange and others. Most of Marvel's fictional characters operate in a single reality known as the Marvel Universe, with locales set in real-life cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The comic-book arm of the company started in 1939 as Timely Publications, and by the 1950s had generally become known as Atlas Comics. Marvel's modern incarnation dates from 1961, with the launching of Fantastic Four and other superhero titles created by Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko, and others. Marvel has since become the largest American comic-book publisher, surpassing its longtime competitor DC Comics.

On December 31, 2009, The Walt Disney Company acquired Marvel Entertainment for $4.24 billion.

Hey! It's their characters and their money….they can do as they please if it makes the movie better.

Another bit of Hollywood tripe!

First of all, Daredevil and Fantastic Four were successful enough for Fox to launch a second film (Elektra in the case of Daredevil). They're only considering relaunching those franchises NOW because of Hollywood's insistence that anything not on the level of Iron Man or Dark Knight is an automatic failure, despite the “moderate” success of those two franchises.

Secondly, Fox — NOT Marvel — had every right to block Singer from the lot because Singer thought the competition between both film studios and their property owners didn't apply to him. You don't tell one blockbuster franchise to pause while you make their competition. Ryan Reynolds gets away with that now only because there is no one else more perfect for Deadpool, and Deadpool's nowhere along the production line that Green Lantern was.

Thirdly, Terrance Howard's dismissal wasn't mishandled by Marvel at all. Two key points were allowed to leak out AFTER the dismissal: cost and ability. Ability had to do with Favreau's distaste in reshooting scenes with Howard that he didn't have to do with any other actor — their views just didn't match. As for cost, his salary was more than Downey, Paltrow and Bridges COMBINED and he wanted a pay raise, which was out of the question.

PLUS Howard doesn't bad mouth them because he was paid a buy out from his contract as per regular practice in Hollywood. Billy Dee Williams made big money for being switched out in Batman Forever for Tommy Lee Jones. It happens.

Finally, regarding Ed Norton: yes, Kevin Feige made a public blunder in his handling of Norton's dismissal. But, that said, there are a number of other factors at play at well, such as: Norton's own attempt to control The Incredible Hulk against Marvel; Norton's lack of praise for Marvel; and the Whedon factor.

Whedon HAS to be considered because Norton — unlike the other actors already attached to the film — is a writer and has his own opinions over how the character should be. He may object to some things already in the first draft, and Marvel's decided that Whedon's presence is more important than Norton. The fact that they've had problems getting an immediate replacement and there's been some caginess around other roles also indicates to me that there may be some issues with Whedon's script as well.

Whedon's responsible for the worst exchange in the first X-Men film, and he hasn't had a great track record with television, so it will be VERY interesting to see how this plays out. But I don't think Ed Norton is really going to make out badly for it at all.