What’s With Marvel Alienating Actors?

I've never really been a fan of the Hulk. I always thought his inclusion in the Avengers was just some way to eventually give the Avengers another super-powered problem that “no one hero can defeat”. If they were an elite, super-hero team, they would never have allowed unpredictable monsters like that. Besides, Banner's whole inner conflict with his temper and personal demons is really tiring to read about. When he Hulks up, he's a pretty unstoppable, one-dimensional, rampaging monster, and this diminishes interest for or tension of the reading experience given the fact that he is just way too powerful.

The most invaluable people are the creative forces behind the movie. While actors can bring a character to life, these characters ARE bigger than any actor (Ed Norton himself even said it). That's the difference between THESE movies and most is that the characters are already well established and the studio knows the characters BETTER than the actors.

Personally I appreciate the humility that Chris Evans has displayed on playing Cap. Not saying that will translate to a great performance, but he seems to get it.

And as tolerable as TIH was, it was a disappointment for me. I don't see what Norton brought that was so great, as the story and writing still missed a number of the entertainment possibilities that the Hulk is capable of as has been demonstrated by a number of very talented comic writers.

you are so sad, show where or when, Norton has a rep that is exactly the opposite to what you are putting up there, and an actor who does a great job at everythng he does…

I can see if sometimes they have to go with a different actor due to budget concerns or whatever, but the studio really should have more professional folks putting out these statements.

Part of the reason Marvel Studios was formed because of the mishandling of their characters in the past with Daredevil being a prime example. It was their creative conviction that led them to this.

However, Marvel has never been a class act. A creative force of nature, yes. But Marvel as a culture has a huge ego and rubs their success in other people's faces.

From Joe Q and Axel Alonso trash talking DC, to dropping creators who are vocal and then badmouthing them, all the way to their mudslinging and finger pointing of studios and actors who don't fall in line. (It's tough to pinpoint blame. Sometimes, the actors ask for too much. Sometimes the studios are at fault. But there are classier ways to handle these things)

I like their books but as an organization, Marvel has never been a “gentleman.”

They are brash and have conviction, which works well for creativity but expectedly ruffles feathers here and there. So, I'm not surprised they are acting like this. However, there are ways of keeping your conviction and being more diplomatic about it.

DC has been more diplomatic, but probably because WB is a greater influence on them. But the results are the same good movies, Decent Movies and bad movies. (Good meaning the recent Batman movies, decent being Watchmen and Losers, bad meaning Catwoman, Jonah Hex and Superman Returns.)

I think it was a mistake not to iron things out with Ed Norton, but worse that they aired out their dirty laundry. And it was a good thing they salvaged the Sam Jackson deal.

alientaing actors?? Who cares??
Is anybody actually not going to see Avengers because Norton isn't in it??
Did people pass on Iron Man 2 because Howard wasn't involved??
The characters sell themselves…

Sam didn't make the role his. It was made for him ever since Hitch drew the Ultimates.

Hard to say, if it is with only Norton and Howard, so what. Don Cheadle is better and actually more like what Rhodey should have been. Sorry but Terence Howard wasn't the right choice for Rhodey in IM 1. And since this was Hulk 2 after Eric Bana did the part already, much like the Batman movies of the 1990's had 3 actors, a third choice who may not be so full of himself might work. Alienation only comes in money and if they have problems with development of character. If they are smart and thoughtful enough, Marvel Studios will simply learn from any errors and do better next time.

Did everyone just up and /forget/ what a tool Norton was when initially asked about The Avengers and such, hemming and hawing as if because of his one big-blockbuster movie he was suddenly too good to be Banner in future endeavors. His own waffling demeanor over the whole thing caused most of us to write him off in the role over a year ago. Face it: Norton's a good actor but he hasn't exactly set the world on fire since his debut and he should be damn grateful and glad to get an iconic role like Banner. He should have been first in the line for an Avengers pic.

I'm GLAD to see Marvel not letting the actors run the show. We're primarily coming to see the characters we like brought to life. We like and want good actors in those roles, but at the end of the day, we're not coming to see them. Tobey Maguire found that out, didn't he? He was a good Peter Parker and Spider-Man, but he forgot that there are a couple hundred equally good young actors that can slip into that role and he won't be missed. As far as I'm aware, Will Smith is the ONLY actor in Hollywood who can guarantee a draw at the box office anymore. People are slowing dropping out of going to a film to see Actor X, but they will go to see Character X.

I totally agree. The last thing Marvel needs is the actors coming in and hampering the process. It didn't sound like Norton was a team player before and what's to make anyone think it's not going to be more of the same with the AVENGERS movie? With so many high profile actors in that movie the last thing they need is someone with an unagreeable ego causing problems and slowing things down.

I know it's fun to blame Marvel the big bad company for being evil and not bringing the actor back and upsetting fans but in some cases it all might be the actor's fault. I don't think the press release from Marvel was bad if what it said was actually true. If it was true what's wrong with just coming out and saying Norton wasn't a team player and was hard to work with? I'm sure the insiders in Hollywood are already well aware of it if it's true. If everyone just pussyfoots around it and act like everything's just lovely, Norton and other actors who pull the same antics will never change.

The only effect Marvel and the AVENGERS movie will gain from this move is a smoother production of the movie. As long as there is a HULK in this movie (played by someone else) they don't have much to worry about.

Superman Returns was a great movie!

“Could Marvel really pull the same tactics they attempted with Norton on Robert Downey Jr. without it blowing up in their faces, for example? Would they be stupid enough to try?”

Can we get Michael Keaton's take on this?

They do have Deadpool and Runaways movies in development.

“But the studio also seems to be running the risk of thinking that actors and other talent is entirely interchangable, and that the most important ingredient is the Marvel brand and the characters”

Fuckingly true, dude! Listen, these people thinks they have found a gold mine with all these movie adaptions, but consider that: just in 2011 are due to release SIX movies based in a comic franchise, each one have a budget between 100-150,000,000 $, (Cowboys & Aliens, X-Men: First Class, Captain America, Thor, Green Hornet, Green Lantern)…

IT'S A MADNESS! If one or two of these movies is a box office bomb maybe this means the end of the genre, (remember the westerns?)…

Man, I predict massive fires in Marvel if they don't make huge ammounts of money in the near future. Disney don't joke.

“”But the studio also seems to be running the risk of thinking that actors and other talent is entirely interchangable, and that the most important ingredient is the Marvel brand and the characters”

Fuckingly true, dude!”

Possibly true, at least if Marvel is lucky. The big litmus test would be whether audiences would accept someone other than Jackman as Wolverine, for example, or Downey as Iron Man, in the jump from one film to another without the long fallow period that other successful recastings (the new Star Trek for example) have had. Also, as I said, Bond (and Batman), are anomalies, at least so far. The upcoming Spider-man reboot will be a major indicator, coming right on the heels of what was still an incredibly successful and popular series (and, despite fan reaction, Spider-man 3 was still a HUGE box office success, both domestically and globally.)

Anyway, I was just stating that the way the mainstream comics industry works is not the way the film industry works, at all. The organization, the relationship of company to talent, the entire power dynamic within those relationships, is so radically different that there's little comparison. There's no implied value judgement there; it's just the way it is, and it impacts every facet of how business is done, in ways that go far beyond what audiences know or care about, but have to do with an entirely different business culture/ecology. To draw literal comparisons from one to the other (say, Brubaker at Marvel) is moot.

I think I'm more annoyed with the fact that Marvel almost wants to be a step or two behind DC. I mean, Feigle is obviously a pussy and a coward, yeah I don't know the whole details about the Norton thing but how many times do you think this sort of thing has happened in movies? Does Feigle even want to be succesful or do you think he's pulling a Kanye West move and being an idiot to get attention? Bah, I found some more good venting a few sites:
http://review2akill.com/2010/07/15/nuv-smash-pu…

I only went to see Hulk because I think Ed Norton is so talented and every time his characters appear so much smarter than if they casted some other bulked up puppet. too bad

According to Box Office Mojo, the #1 movie of 1995 was Toy Story. Batman Forever was less than $8 million behind it, though, so the point stands.

Stan was exploited as much as anyone. He doesn't share ownership of anything he co-created either. Kirby resented Stan for hogging credit, not for making money off his hard work. In his later years Stan was able to arrange a sweet deal for himself thanks to a loophole in his contract, but before that, outside of his yearly stipend as Marvel's head cheerleader he was making jack squat off everything he co-created, same as Kirby, Ditko and the rest.

Yes, yes and your sarcasm is flabbergasting… as if the plot of the film is going to stick to the original plot of the comic books… I don't think so. There was plenty of emotion in Bana's performce, he just doesn't have the Banner look. Norton looks better cause he's skinnier. Norton is one of those prissy thespians. Let him go make another sophisticated art film. Let's see if they give him a writing credit.

@Comicsaredead,

Okay, so you have a rationale for disliking Norton’s work. Cool, though you were not specific before I assumed you had some reasons. I’m glad to hear your real argument. And I am sure others want to thank you for being so candid also.

If we ignore the non-creative and redundant narrative you thought Norton, at best, did a caricature of the late Bill Bixby’s acting work. You thought his acting and directorial logic made Norton an impressionist and not a serious thespian. Brother, I think (acting wise) that’s a pretty serious charge and an equally negative insult. Unlike many, you think these decisions (on Norton’s part) make it clear that Norton’s gifts aren’t nearly as fine as everyone thinks.

You obviously don’t think Norton’s claim that the Hulk TV show really provided the building blocks for appreciating this character in a live action dramatic depiction. In this way you are not just speaking as a historian but a comics scholar as well. You saw his effort or mimicry as being lazy, trite, and unoriginal. You’re saying good riddance Norton, because after the character’s 30 plus run in comics, the Hulk deserves a lot better acting effort than that.

I don’t share your sentiment, because I found watching Ang Lee’s version hard to watch more than once. Though I don’t believe this made it a great depiction; I found Norton’s version easier to digest a second time. I’m being lazy but I think any positive projection of super hero characters is a must. Forgive me I'm so tired of seeing bad depictions, I'm happy if live action doesn't destroy a character entirely (a la Jonah Hex, even though I believe Marvel has a much worse track record).

Despite our differences, I think what you are doing is exactly what this site and the comics community needs. We need real discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of different acting approaches. I’m tired of hearing that actors are spoiled, rich divas that thrive on attention at the risk of hurting characters we love. When in fact actors professionally have as much to loose as any writer, artist, colorist, etc. who attempts to depict fictional characters whom millions already love. Bad work hurts characters and comics’ fans have the right to be glad that when we haven’t seen Ben Affleck in too many starring roles since he participated in making Daredevil look bad.

Comicsaredead, with your honesty, you do us all a great favor. What we do agree on is like you I’m still waiting for the Hulk we know from comics not the inarticulate Hulk of the Bixby/Ferrigno TV era. I have great respect for your insight. Again thanks and keep posting.

Ang Lee's version is hard to watch, and that has a lot do with gamma-poodles, as well as Bana's gratingly bad performance. Norton did a great job playing the “puny Banner” we should have seen, though I disagree with this statement that comicsaredead made: “He did not feel like an intelligent scientist, just an actor filling a void.”

Having been raised by an intelligent, world-renowned scientist (in his field, anyway), I can honestly say that Norton acted quite a bit like an intelligent scientist. That said, he wasn't given much chance to–this had quite a bit to do with the fact that the script never really allowed him to be sciency, and spent most of its time with him being on the run. It's difficult to do science on the run.

“Bad work hurts characters and comics’ fans have the right to be glad that when we haven’t seen Ben Affleck in too many starring roles since he participated in making Daredevil look bad.”

Director's cut of the film totally made it worth watching. I wouldn't watch it again, but I liked it enough to encourage people who haven't seen it to watch it. Affleck's performance actually makes more sense in that regard.

“(a la Jonah Hex, even though I believe Marvel has a much worse track record).”

Marvel has made a grand total of four films. Iron Man (which allegedly had no script), Iron Man 2 (which was great, but didn't really add anything), Punisher: War Zone (godawful script and the villains were ridiculous actors, but Stevenson, Knight, and the direction were amazing), and Incredible Hulk, which was an enjoyable film. The X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Spider-Man, and earlier Hulk films were all made by independent parties with very little support from Marvel and their shortcomings really can't be blamed on the publisher.

Universal distributed Incredible Hulk, but they didn't film it. Marvel Studios did that. They also did Punisher: War Zone.

The Italian Job.