T Nation

Marvels: The Avengers (Trailer)


Yeah looking forward to this - my hope is that stark wheels out the Hulkbuster armour to tame the beast. This movie could go so right or soooooo wrong but theres really no excuse now to make a subpar comic book movie.


Robert Downey jr. worked with him on Zodiac - I get the feeling that he put Ruffalo's name forward when they recast Banner. If you want to see Ruffalo do a serious role, watch Shutter Island: he plays DiCaprio's partner and without giving too much away, that movie required all the cast to be able to act.

I don't have a problem with Ruffalo in the role, and I can see why Marvel went for a lesser name after the creative differences with Norton, but I'd have preferred to see Sharlto Copley play Banner. Apparently he was top in fan polls when Norton dropped out.


Ironic considering who he was playing.


Norton was supposed to have script approval as part of his contract (that was one of the reasons he took the role in the first place).

He wanted to make changes to the script that would have explored darker themes (one of his ideas was to have Banner attempt suicide by blowing his own brains out, but the Hulk changed at the last second after the bullet had left the gun in an act of self preservation to stop Banner from killing them both. The part where Banner jumps out of the helicopter to fight Abomination after being cured would have made more sense if that scene made it to the movie).

After Ang Lee's version bombed (and it wasn't even that bad, just way too complicated for an origin story), Marvel decided to go completely in the opposite direction and make an action movie based on fan feedback, so everything that was criticized in the first movie was out. Consequently, most of Norton's ideas were vetoed and that's why Norton left.


Norton has had script approval and has made considerable rewrites to a number of the films he starred in for quite some time now. I do believes there's been cases where he's been asked to re-write a script and then ended up landing a major role within the movie when the original actor dropped out.

All in all, he's one of the greatest talents of our time, it's a shame he doesn't act more but it also makes you appreciate the work he has done that much more.

edit: My main point from the first paragraph is that directors/producers/etc should know by now that when they cast him what they're essentially getting into and that his talent is worth it.


In this instance the script approval was key in convincing Norton to take the role, as it should have assured him a degree of control over the character. I think in the end Marvel got more than they bargained for by hiring a star of Norton's magnitude (he was by far the biggest star to sign up for a lead at that point: Downey jr. was just clawing back his reputation and Sam Jackson as Fury was a supporting player).

It just seems as though they wanted Ed Norton the actor only, but had to take Ed Norton the writer as well to nab the actor. I chalk the entire situation up to Marvel being a young studio at that time. Some of their contract negotiations were terrible (opening offer to Mickey Rourke after The Wrestler? $250,000. Peanuts for a summer blockbuster..


I despise you all. I can only hope and pray I manage to get stateside to see this movie.


You're always bad mouthing, Thor. Damn you.


Is dubbed your only option? The German language trailer seems to lack a certain something...

Has extra footage, though.


Damn, Samuel L's dubber sounds like a girl. They could have at least found someone with a deeper voice, with a soul voice. Argh! Even in French and Spanish dub, Jackson sounds fucking badass.

Yes, I'm picky like that! Ehehehe...


They just showed the avengers, first off AWESOME but I noticed they did change the hulk he is more square shape, like the 60's and less bodybuilder like as has been portrayedin the films


Cool. Yes I'd forgotten about Shutter. Very good film by all actors. I haven't seen Zodiac - I REALLY should.

I've only seen two films with Copley (like most people) and liked both of them. District 9 is one of the quirkiest action packed films I've seen and he did Murdock great justice in A Team.

How was the Super Bowl trailer?



Aw crap...I see I've posted a hwite rectangle...well, just search "avengers super bowl" on youtube.

It looks great. Hulk looks like the Ang Lee one more than the emo looking one from Ed Norton's movie. I prefer the Ang Lee design.


Is that 'cos he's Taiwanese?? huh?!

Sorry...couldn't resist :smiley:


I saw it for the first time when Nards posted it. I'm a fan of Joss Whedon's work anyway, especially Firefly and Serenity. Some people hate his dialogue, but he's the ideal choice for this on a number of levels: I can't think of another director who can wrangle a large cast without some of the characters getting eclipsed - as happens with this type of ensemble movie (Streetfighter anyone?)- plus he has experience actually writing comic books.

This is one occasion where a monumental effort would be required to ruin it.


A fine line is walked when the fans are allowed the opportunity to influence a film. That's all I'm saying.

Nortons ideas were badass and it's a shame that sort of thing didn't get in the movie.

But, for as big as he is, I hope the Hulk isn't on screen that much and that there's more of a focus on Banner. When it comes down to it, anytime Hulk is on screen it's a cartoon or at least a video game look. Nothing against the chartacter, I love the Hulk, but getting him on the big screen realistically is always going to be hard.

I like Ang Lee's version. Sam Eliot? Eric Bana? Jennifer Connoly?

I'm in.

It was all the screen wipes and split screen techniques they used (to make it look more of a comic book I assume) that had me scratching my head.


It was the cheesy hulk poodle and the punch in the nuts that ruined it for me, also the lack of the Hulk speaking I'm a fan of the comic and I wanted to hear Hulk Smash


It wasn't so much that fans were allowed direct input (I agree that would be disastrous); more that Marvel looked at the Ang Lee version as a total failure when a lot of the elements did work. The template for Leterrier's Hulk was basically to listen to what was considered bad about the first Hulk, then do the opposite.

I didn't like Ang Lee's Hulk at all when I first saw it in the theater: it felt ploddy and the actual cause of Banner's change was far more complicated than it needed to be. Ang Lee tried to make it into a "Greek tragedy" by having the Hulk genes passed down from his father who had experimented on himself before Banner was born, which were activated by gamma.

Not necessary. The Hulk was based on Jekyll and Hyde, which is quite a linear concept and that story explored man's battle with his primal self without resorting to a protracted origin.

Edit: I saw it on TV a few years later and enjoyed it much more, but the storytelling was and remains totally uneconomical for an origin movie. Making the origin the focus of the story worked for Batman, but the dramatic meat of the Hulk story lies in the conflict between Banner and the green goliath. You need both for that, just as Jekyll would be nothing without Hyde.


Both Hulk story lines were utterly disappointing. Why Norton is considered better is beyond me. They both missed the mark completely. Dr. Banner became the Hulk because he risked his own life to save Rick Jones from getting killed by a Gamma bomb test. Rick then becomes Dr. Banner's confidant.

Dr. Banner becomes the Hulk not because of self experimentation or because his dad messed up his genes, no, it is because of an accident, a heroic deed gone wrong (for him). Rick Jones actually became such and integral character/side kick that they even teamed him up with Captain America and Captain Mar-Vell.

The Hulk character was genius and it is retarded to change the way Bannar turned into the Hulk. How do you identify with a guy who experimented on himself and got himself messed up? You don't. You can identify with the guy bullied that's getting bit by a spider and the guy who saw his parents killed in front of him when he was ten as well as the guy hit with gamma rays while trying to save some dumb ass who accepted a dare driving on a bomb testing site. The original stories are what drew us in to these characters and stories and to deviate from it is arrogant.

Norton and Lee do not know better and that character should not have been messed with at all. Why did Spiderman work so well? Why did Batman work so well? They stuck as close to the original story as possible. Why did Superman Returns suck a large amount of monkey balls? He knocked Lois Lane up, did not tell her he was Clark Kent and left. Wow, talk about veering away from what your character stands for. No amount of special effects can make up for that.

Hulk is no different, actually, with Hulk especially they should have stayed close to the original story. He turned into a monster because he saved somebody and his journey is now trying to find a way to become human again. Awesome story line and they fucked it up.

/end rant (love that character damnit :))