[pscates2.0]

I find this very odd. Huge movie opens today (last night, technically, with those midnight showings) and not one of you yay-hoos has the decency to go see it and tell us about it?



Murbot, aren't you a big Hulk fan? And Drew, this seems like a movie right up the Captain's alley!



I must've been tired because I didn't go to my usual midnight showing "experience" (I thought about it really hard, and came *this close*, but ultimately fell asleep on the couch. And then I spent half the day today setting up an iMac (updates to bring it up to 10.5.3, printer and digital camera add-ons and some accompanying training/demos, etc.) and then vacuumed/cleaned a swimming pool afterwards, so I wasn't able to go today either.

While I'm not as hopped-up to see this as I was "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" (or even Indiana Jones, truthfully), it was still "on my list", and Edward Norton is one of my favorite actors.

I'll try my best to get to a matinee this weekend, but it's not looking good. I've gone and triple-scheduled my time and services for various friends and family projects...

So, has anyone seen this yet? It looks interesting, but the CGI - at least in all the trailers I've seen - looks a skootch "video game-ish", and not even as realistic and believable as Ang Lee's take on the character in 2003.



I hear that this one adheres more to the Marvel comic (not as grim and morose as Lee's), and with quite a few touches or nods to the Bill Bixby CBS TV show (cameo by Lou Ferrigno, a glimpse of Bixby on a TV set, that piano theme song, the white/green contact lenses during initial transformation, etc.).

Beyond all that, what I really want to know is how do his pants always stay on? He busts out of his shoes and shirt whenever he "hulks out", yet his pants always seem to grow with him. I guess they got hit with the gamma rays too?

I realize the serious answer is "people just really don't want to see a green 18-inch wang with volleyball testicles at their local multiplex" (I'd argue with that because I know a few people who probably do, but that's a whole other thread ), but it's still one of those "why?" questions. He must wear those Sansabelt slacks or something...

So, anyway...any "Incredible Hulk" reviews and talk, post it here! And use spoiler tags when necessary.

Tony Stark - yes, Robert Downey, Jr.! - appears at the end of this, talking to General Ross. Very cool how they're bringing these things together. And I'm not sure how much of a "spoiler" this is, since they're running a TV trailer showing this conversation; but I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Beyond all that, what I really want to know is how do his pants always stay on?

In addition to the magic expandapants, notice how his beard scruff disappears?

[ezkcdude]

It was great. I think you got to get over the pants thing. It's been said so many times before. They even got some jokes out of it, which I give some credit. Anyway, the action was awesome. I usually am the first to complain about cgi, but I thought they did an excellent job - especially with the closeups. Also, and nobody's really talking about this, but the entire first "Hulk Out" sequence in that Brazilian warehouse was phenomenal. I love the way they didn't reveal the Hulk or his transformation too quickly. And I should say, even though Ang Lee's version is considered more "dramatic", I never came close to shedding a tear, but I did on more than one occasion in this version. It was much closer to the ethos of the tv show. Overall, I liked it considerably more than Iron Man. Some of that is because I grew up watching the tv show - but I think even beyond that this film hit all the right notes for me. I don't know what they will do for a sequel - but I'm really looking forward to it. Or the Avengers whichever comes first, I guess.

There is one plot hole that really bugs me. If General Ross has that "super soldier" formula that he gave Blonsky - and it turns him into a real fighting force and able to heal so well - what the heck does he need the Hulk for? Wouldn't it be enough to have an army of super soldiers? I can't really figure that one out.

[Kickaha]

Can I admit something I'm sure many will find horrible?

I never could stand the TV show. It was cheesy, it was boring, and any pathos was so overdone as to be laughable. Bixby did the best he could with the material, but even as a kid, I had to roll my eyes at it.

And I *like* the characters and source material. In the right hands (Peter David, and yes, even Ang Lee), it can be phenomenal. The show... wasn't. The rumors that that's what they decided to use as inspiration totally turned me off from wanting to see this movie.

There, got that off my chest.

[PKIDelirium]

I probably won't see it. I saw the one in 2003 and it was the extreme suck.

[pscates2.0]

The TV show was pretty sappy and sad. Banner was such a mope, and every episode ended with that tinkling, "I'm a loner, with my bag over my shoulder, off to find another part-time job in a town where I don't know anyone" music.



Oh, and everything - everything - the Hulk did in that show was in slow motion. So, naturally, it made the "action" scenes (usually Hulk just throwing some bad guys into a stack of cardboard boxes) quite boring. Like "The Six Million Dollar Man", it took him forever to do something. Even as a kid, I'm sitting there going "hurry up...!"

I wasn't a huge fan of the show either, but, as a kid, that's the kind of stuff you watch. But I kinda thought he (Banner) was a bit of a humorless doofus (Alex Reiger with a temper).

ezkcdude, I apologize profusely over the "pants" thing. Not being a huge fan/follower of the character, I didn't realize it was such overplayed schtick at this point. Seemed like a legit question/concern to me, having just watched the Ang Lee version a few nights ago and wondering about it. And I love nothing more than to be told what to "get over". Thanks!

In any case, the check is on its way.



The Ang Lee version, BTW, I hated the first time I saw it (rented it, soon after it hit the stores). But I've seen it on USA(?) a few times, bits and pieces, and there's something about it that I like. It's not perfect, and parts of it are weak and weird. But I like the look and tone of it, and the character design and CGI. Nolte kinda creeps me out, but it's one of those movies I can flip past and see, and will sit and wait for certain sequences because they look neat (I like when he hops onto the back of that fighter jet, and Sam Eliot tells the pilot to take him on a "ride to the top of the world". That's a neat scene.



It's grim and sad in places (his childhood and so forth), but parts of that movie really shine.

[pscates2.0]

Oh, and BTW...what about that new M. Night Shamalamadingdong movie that opened today too? "The Happening".



I'm kinda over this guy. Every movie he makes is 1.5x worse than the one before. It's just snowballing at this point, so I know this new one can't be worth a rip. Mathematically there's simply no way this can be any good.

[drewprops]

Did someone summon the Magic Captain for a Hulk review?

Very well then.

First of all, I liked it.
This is unsurprising in that I expected CRAP.
I only went to keep up with the storylines leading to the S.H.I.E.L.D. movie and because a friend and his girlfriend were going.

So, Ed Norton as Dr. Banner, eh?
Good? Bad?
He was good. Did a really fine job.

Liv Tyler was especially sexy and reminded me of a friend of mine through the whole movie. Almost called her after it was over.

The Hulk CGI debate?
I was honestly good with the CGI, which really surprised me as I'd felt we were going to watch a 2-hour videogame.

I don't think that there's enough story material about The Hulk for them to justify making more movies about the character.

Okay, I have to go to bed now.

[joveblue]

Couldn't they have waited a bit longer than 5 years to do a remake? Not like it was a particularly good premise to begin with.

That is all.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by joveblue Couldn't they have waited a bit longer than 5 years to do a remake? Not like it was a particularly good premise to begin with. That is all.

Yeah..."reboots" are apparently the new sequels.

But I don't get it. Batman Begins, I got. Casino Royale, I got. But this? The first one flopped. And maybe...just maybe...that's because watching someone turn big and green and smash things isn't exactly riveting entertainment to anyone over the age of ten?

I'm not trying to "snob out" here. I know there's a place for superhero movies, and I've enjoyed a great deal of them. And it's not like I'm opposed to popcorn-y action flicks, either - I love a destructive car chase as much as the next guy. But I guess I've never really understood the appeal of the Incredible Hulk.

I liked X-Men. I liked Batman. I liked Iron Man. Those all have interesting and likable characters with lots of creative space to explore. But Hulk just...doesn't. I'm sorry. They always try to make it dramatic, because he doesn't really want to be the Hulk (or does he?), but that really not enough substance for one movie, much less a second. And - thanks to the magic of "reboots" - that first movie apparently never existed, so we get to explore that same tired territory again.

No thanks.

Of all the people I know who have seen/are seeing Hulk, half are cinephiles who see something every weekend (and now wish they had seen The Happening) and the other half are comic book nerds - and even most of those are seeing it more for the Tony Stark cameo than anything. And when a cameo appearance of another more interesting character is all that people are talking about in the weeks leading up to your film...that's a problem.

And don't get me started on the special effects, k?

Ang Lee said, five years ago, that it's hard to make a realistic Hulk (I literally almost typed Shrek ) because "we know he's not real." And that's true. Not only is it easier to animate, say, Stark's suit, but Iron Man, while equally far-fetched in actuality, at least doesn't have a giant green dude smashing things. And if the audience - after half a decade of CGI advancements - still can't suspend its collective disbelief, then maybe the directors should be asking themselves if The Incredible Hulk is appropriate for a film adaptation.

The flop of the last film would seem to suggest otherwise. But we'll see how this one turns out, at the box office.

My prediction: Better than the last one, but not good enough for a sequel. Maybe another reboot in five years, though...

[drewprops]

I have a question about a character in the movie....

Is Mr. Blue analogous to a character from the comics? When some of that Hulk juice drops into his brain wound his head swells up. Who's the character he's supposed to be?!!

[Capella]

Haven't seen it, and am not interested enough to go see it before it comes out on DVD, but I just want to chime in with something I think a couple people overlooked- probably 'cause it's something that mostly fanboys know. They're not doing Hulk to do "yet another remake." They're doing Hulk because Hulk is an Avenger, they are doing an Avenger movie, and they have to do a remade Hulk that fits with the canon they're using for the Avengers shared universe. They couldn't have used the 2003 version for Avengers. So it's not just "another remake" but "another stage in Marvel's grand plan."

Whether or not knowing that makes you more forgiving of seeing the Hulk again, well, that's up to you

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by Capella Haven't seen it, and am not interested enough to go see it before it comes out on DVD

I think this could be the movie's tag line.

[spotcatbug]

Review in Hulk-speak

[pscates2.0]

Originally Posted by drewprops I have a question about a character in the movie.... Is Mr. Blue analogous to a character from the comics? When some of that Hulk juice drops into his brain wound his head swells up. Who's the character he's supposed to be?!!

I saw this at IMDB:

What happens to Dr. Sterns during his final scene in the movie? Sterns' head begins to pulse and grow after he is knocked to the ground by "The Abomination." This may be a nod to Sterns' villain alter-ego in other Hulk story lines where Sterns experiences gamma exposure and becomes known as "The Leader."

Is that the character you're talking about?

Originally Posted by Capella Haven't seen it, and am not interested enough to go see it before it comes out on DVD, but I just want to chime in with something I think a couple people overlooked- probably 'cause it's something that mostly fanboys know. They're not doing Hulk to do "yet another remake." They're doing Hulk because Hulk is an Avenger, they are doing an Avenger movie, and they have to do a remade Hulk that fits with the canon they're using for the Avengers shared universe. They couldn't have used the 2003 version for Avengers. So it's not just "another remake" but "another stage in Marvel's grand plan." Whether or not knowing that makes you more forgiving of seeing the Hulk again, well, that's up to you

This is true. They're doing the cross-pollinating thing (Stark here, Fury there, etc.) and setting the stage for a 2011-2012 Avengers movie, from what I've read. That'll be a logistical (and budgetary) pain-in-the-ass. All those actors, egos, salaries, scheduling, coming up with a script that everyone involved agrees on, etc.



Good luck with that!

I don't see it happening, frankly. They'll probably wind up "scaling back" their big dream/vision, and just doing a 2D animated Avengers "direct to DVD" flick, with folks like Bronson Pinchot, Judge Reinhold and Didi Conn providing the voice work.



Then again, those "Oceans Eleven" movies pulled quite a few somewhat-known actors all together...

It can be done, I suppose.

[drewprops]

na na na na na na na na LEADER!!!
leader
leader
leader

(yes, that was what I was talking about)

fishing, fishing, FISHING....

[Xaqtly]

Originally Posted by joveblue Couldn't they have waited a bit longer than 5 years to do a remake? Not like it was a particularly good premise to begin with.

The thing is, Marvel is now producing their own movies, with Paramount simply distributing them. Iron Man was the first movie they produced themselves and Hulk was the second. You can't really pre-judge this Hulk movie based on Ang Lee's version because his wasn't done by Marvel, and this one was. I think it's pretty obvious based on the quality of Iron Man and the fact that this Hulk is arguably better than Ang Lee's, that Marvel has a better grip on their characters and stories than anybody else.

And of course it allows them to do movie crossovers, just like they do in the comic books. Iron Man and The Hulk are both leading up to The Avengers movie. I, for one, am pretty darn happy with how Marvel handles producing their own movies so far, and I'm looking forward to more of it. In the works are: Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, Ant-Man and The Avengers.

[Eugene]

I wish Marvel would stop churning out popcorn comic movies, but they make so much money. Meh. Just makes me more psyched for Dark Knight.

[Moogs]

No thanks... I took one look at the ad, saw that it had become a Good Hulk vs. Evil Hulk CGI circle-jerk, and immediately lost interest. I knew right then the story had been ruined. I used to watch that show and it's completely obvious the original story / tone of the thing is nowhere to be found. Hollywood Ruin-squad to the rescue once more.

So far we have a couple ruinz at least this year with Speedracer and now Hulk. Get Smart is the only recent exception I can think of, as Steve Carrell seems the perfect choice for that bit and the ads didn't look too ridiculous.

I think we're running out of TV shows though, Hollywood could be in trouble. What's next Leave it to Beaver and Gilligan's Island?

[pscates2.0]

Originally Posted by Moogs No thanks... I took one look at the ad, saw that it had become a Good Hulk vs. Evil Hulk CGI circle-jerk, and immediately lost interest. I knew right then the story had been ruined. I used to watch that show and it's completely obvious the original story / tone of the thing is nowhere to be found. Hollywood Ruin-squad to the rescue once more.

Well, the original TV show wasn't much to write home about. A repetitive, one-note mope-fest in slo-mo every Friday night. Even as a wide-eyed kid (who should've been all over it) I was less than taken with it.

Originally Posted by Moogs So far we have a couple ruinz at least this year with Speedracer and now Hulk.

...and I'd include Indiana Jones in there. While it made some money (worldwide), it was a "here and gone in five days" type of deal. As I'd suspected all along - check the archives - nobody gives a shit, after 19 years. In the big scheme of things, nothing would've been wrong with them simply leaving the original trilogy as is. Now there's an asterisk on the franchise; a "well, but..." type of thing that kinda hobbles the originals a bit, or puts them in a different light (and leaves a funky taste in my mouth). I cannot imagine myself, 20 years from now, sitting down and watching "Crystal Skull" on TNT or USA with a smile on a my face and a big bowl of popcorn. But two nights ago, I sat and watched "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and it was never better.

Originally Posted by Moogs Get Smart is the only recent exception I can think of, as Steve Carrell seems the perfect choice for that bit and the ads didn't look too ridiculous.

You're obviously in the throes of heavy drug addiction; and as one of my favorite peeps here I sincerely hope you seek help to kick the habit and get your life back on track.



...and I'm letting that Keith Olbermann thing slide because I didn't want to turn the Russert thread into something. But seriously, man...just say no to drugs.

Originally Posted by Moogs I think we're running out of TV shows though, Hollywood could be in trouble. What's next Leave it to Beaver...

Already been taken care of.

Originally Posted by Moogs ...and Gilligan's Island?

Kinda. In any case, I'm sure the bigger-budget, feature film version is in the works somewhere...surely such an obvious "cash cow" *ahem* couldn't go unnoticed by tuned-in Hollywood.

In the meantime, you have "Survivor". Twice the a-holes, none of the charm. Enjoy!

[ezkcdude]

Originally Posted by Moogs No thanks... I took one look at the ad, saw that it had become a Good Hulk vs. Evil Hulk CGI circle-jerk, and immediately lost interest. I knew right then the story had been ruined. I used to watch that show and it's completely obvious the original story / tone of the thing is nowhere to be found. Hollywood Ruin-squad to the rescue once more.

"It's completely obvious"? You took one look at an ad and come to that conclusion, eh? Well, as someone who actually saw the movie, and loved the tv show as a kid - let me be the first to say you're way off base here. The 2008 Hulk does way more to capture the poignancy of the tv series than the 2003 Hulk. So much so, that I actually became teary-eyed in a couple of different scenes. I think you should actually talk to people who have seen the movie before writing it off.

[pscates2.0]

Yeah, I hear this new movie has quite a bit of the Bixby TV show vibe to it (a couple of cameos, that piano motif, the "wandering loner trying to find a cure for himself" angle, the green/white glowing eyes when the transformation begins, a "you wouldn't like me..." reference, etc.).

Seems more like the TV show than the 2003 Ang Lee version.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude "It's completely obvious"? You took one look at an ad and come to that conclusion, eh? Well, as someone who actually saw the movie, and loved the tv show as a kid - let me be the first to say you're way off base here. The 2008 Hulk does way more to capture the poignancy of the tv series than the 2003 Hulk. So much so, that I actually became teary-eyed in a couple of different scenes. I think you should actually talk to people who have seen the movie before writing it off.

If you literally became teary-eyed at the throwbacks to the TV series, then it's not like we can count on you to be an impartial critic, either.

There's nothing wrong with being a fan of something. There's movies I love that I know, from a critical point of view, are less than stellar. Just don't go snapping at people who can tell (yes, from "one look at an ad") that a movie isn't for them, or people who do question the whole "magic stretchy pants" thing, okay?

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by ezkcdude The 2008 Hulk does way more to capture the poignancy of the tv series

That right there is kind of the problem. Wrong source material.

[Partial]

I actually really enjoyed the movie. Much better than Spiderman, and setting up the avengers movie very well.

It was far more realistic in my opinion with the whole renegade and loneliness angles. Spiderman's public perception seems far too accepting (though I understand that the people love spiderman), which is definitely not the case with the Hulk.

Overall, I say its the best Marvel movie yet and the twist at the end is setting up a nice Avengers movie. One of the few movies that was given a standing ovation.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Roboman My prediction: Better than the last one, but not good enough for a sequel. Maybe another reboot in five years, though...

There absolutely will be a sequel. I'll let you go watch it and you'll understand why.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 There absolutely will be a sequel. I'll let you go watch it and you'll understand why.

Um, no. The ending scene was written to be open-ended, so that, if the movie bombed at the box office, Hulk could appear in the Avengers movie as the villain (which does fit it with the canon, because the Avengers initially fight Hulk, and then he joins them). If the Hulk movie was a success, Marvel would make one additional sequel before the Avengers flick, setting Hulk up to be one of the heroes in the Avengers film. I know Hulk would appear in the Avengers flick either way, but that was not the movie I was referring to - a true sequel is very much in question, and dependent on Hulk's performance at the box office.

I'll watch what I want to, thanks.

And, um, at least in these parts, virtually every film with a built-in "geek" audience - comic book movies, Indy 4, Star Wars - receives a standing ovation if you go opening weekend (with the geeks). It's not usually considered indicative of the quality of the film - no critic is sitting there, thinking "Why, no one stood up at all for American Beauty!"

[pscates2.0]

I heard it made around $54-60 million this opening weekend. But I'm sure the budget is twice that, so...

And with modern moviegoing/openings like they are (something new on the horizon every Friday to grab people's attention, etc.), this thing might stall out at less than $100 million domestically.

Movies now - especially these big, effects-laden popcorn/summertime "event" flicks - have to make some insane amount of money on opening weekend to really stand a shot at being called "a hit". Because, let's face it, most of these types of movies have a built-in, focused type of audience who are all going to see it within the first 2-3 days of release (that first weekend...somehow, someway).

I can't think of any recent "big movies" that opened modestly (or even big) and then "kept it going" for weeks and weeks. Maybe something like "Pirates of the Caribbean"? It seemed to have a nice little run a few years ago of good word of mouth and growing/expanding appeal beyond opening weekend. But even "Iron Man" and Indiana Jones were faded and forgotten about, for the most part, by the following weekend.

But you gotta figure that most of these superhero flicks...the fans are going to be there at midnight on Thursday or the first Friday showing they can make. And by Sunday most anyone who was truly wanting to see "The Incredible Hulk" kinda already has. There will be stragglers like me, but that takes a lot of random $9 tickets to add up to anything a week or so after opening...

I remember hearing about the first movie that cost over $50 million to make (wasn't that long ago, actually...10-15 years ago, I believe) and that just seemed so crazy. But now, nothing costs less than $75 million, and if it's a superhero flick with big names, big effects, CGI, stunts galore, set pieces, mega-marketing, etc. you're looking at $100-200 million, easily.

I don't know how some of these studio and players stay afloat, greenlighting such big, extravagent things, only to see see them barely break even (if at all).

I guess that's why they take the time to film all those interviews and "making of" spots for the DVD release with the "bonus material" galore...every little bit helps, I guess.

I'm not sure how this Hulk movie is going to shake out, money-wise. But, like Indy, I'm not hearing super good word-of-mouth or "ohmigosh, it was amazing!", so that $60 million probably represents 2/3 of its eventual domestic (U.S.) haul...

[Robo]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I heard it made around $54-60 million this opening weekend. But I'm sure the budget is twice that, so... And with modern moviegoing/openings like they are (something new on the horizon every Friday to grab people's attention, etc.), this thing might stall out at less than $100 million domestically. Movies now - especially these big, effects-laden popcorn/summertime "event" flicks - have to make some insane amount of money on opening weekend to really stand a shot at being called "a hit". Because, let's face it, most of these types of movies have a built-in, focused type of audience who are all going to see it within the first 2-3 days of release (that first weekend...somehow, someway). I can't think of any recent "big movies" that opened modestly (or even big) and then "kept it going" for weeks and weeks. Maybe something like "Pirates of the Caribbean"? It seemed to have a nice little run a few years ago of good word of mouth and growing/expanding appeal beyond opening weekend. But even "Iron Man" and Indiana Jones were faded and forgotten about, for the most part, by the following weekend. But you gotta figure that most of these superhero flicks...the fans are going to be there at midnight on Thursday or the first Friday showing they can make. And by Sunday most anyone who was truly wanting to see "The Incredible Hulk" kinda already has. There will be stragglers like me, but that takes a lot of random $9 tickets to add up to anything a week or so after opening... I remember hearing about the first movie that cost over $50 million to make (wasn't that long ago, actually...10-15 years ago, I believe) and that just seemed so crazy. But now, nothing costs less than $75 million, and if it's a superhero flick with big names, big effects, CGI, stunts galore, set pieces, mega-marketing, etc. you're looking at $100-200 million, easily. I don't know how some of these studio and players stay afloat, greenlighting such big, extravagent things, only to see see them barely break even (if at all). I guess that's why they take the time to film all those interviews and "making of" spots for the DVD release with the "bonus material" galore...every little bit helps, I guess. I'm not sure how this Hulk movie is going to shake out, money-wise. But, like Indy, I'm not hearing super good word-of-mouth or "ohmigosh, it was amazing!", so that $60 million probably represents 2/3 of its eventual domestic (U.S.) haul...

Pscates nails it. Hulk has already capitalized on its core audience (comic book fans), and I'm not sure how successful its been in courting general theater-goers.

I'll be honest - I am one of the cinephiles I described who's at the theatres pretty much every weekend. It's not like I have some crazed vendetta against the Hulk - I'd totally go see it...if I actually knew anyone else who actually wanted to go.

But not one of my friends really cared. They all think it "looks stupid" (for all the reasons Pscates described when the trailer first hit the internets) or they're tired of superhero movies (because, seriously, there's what, five every summer?). Even the ones who I convinced to see Iron Man (and loved it) passed on Hulk. And, to be honest, I kinda did too.

If it was just me, I'd go see The Happening, just so I can know WTF is happening in the commercials.

Pscates, I would argue that Iron Man had strong performance at the box office for at least several weeks, until Indy or whatever. It almost singlehandedly destroyed any hopes Speed Racer and Prince Caspian had at the box office, and it's still number seven at the box office - which means you can still find it at most cineplexes. It'll break $300m in its theatrical run, which is pretty damn good.

I just noticed that on IMDb's MOVIEmeter (which measures interest in titles on IMDb), Hulk - while tops at the box office - barely made it onto the list, at #10. It's beaten by The Strangers (#8 at the box office, but #3 on the MOVIEmeter), Prince Caspian (#9 on both lists), and even the Transformers sequel (you know, the one that isn't hitting until next summer) at #7 on the MOVIEmeter. This might not mean much, but it sort of demonstrates that there really wasn't much interest in the Hulk movie (outside of comic book circles) before (and even after) its release. Just look at the title of this thread!

So I guess I don't have much hope for Hulk's long-term prospects at the box office. It certainly doesn't look like it'll be a minor phenomenon, like Iron Man was.

That's good for me, because it boosts the chances of Wall-E's success. Go Wall-E Go!

[pscates2.0]

They'll have to just roll that character in to the Avengers movie, probably as a bad guy (or not outright hero). Norton, if he's as mercurial as I've read, probably won't be back, or want anything to do with it (he's all pissy anyway and isn't doing major promotion for it...he was unhappy with the final editing or something).



Way to not get behind something!

Nothing says "surefire summer blockbuster" like the main star not even giving a shit.



In fact, that might've played into this as well and, if that's the case, Marvel will want Norton's head on a lance for lousing up their shot.

Seriously...when you, as a viewer/moviegoer, get the impression that the main, lead actor in something isn't that thrilled or taken with the finished product...

Yikes. Kinda hard to get behind and give up your $9 ($55 when you factor in popcorn, Junior Mints and a beverage ) and two hours of your life.

What do you wanna bet some sort of legal action springs from this eventually?

"Marvel seeks to sue the balls off of Edward Norton for being a non-promoting, franchise-killing asshat" - Variety