"Thor" Trailer Premier and New Poster

Chris Hemsworth is the hammer yielding God. I don't want to waste any time... here is Thor. Click the jump to watch the trailer and read below for my comments.

So what did you think? Let down? Cluttered? Choppy? Unorganized? All of the above? I have to say, this did less for me than the stills I've seen over the past few months. I've been on the fence about Thor since I heard it was being made. It's almost TOO different from Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk. Yeah yeah, I know it has to be different to stand on its own two feet, but this is waaaay different. So, who's going to go see it? I still might, but definitely not in 3D the way they're flaunting it. Nope! Good 'ol 2D will do it for me. Hey, that rhymes. Cool.

Quickie: A Mark Ruffalo Stand-Alone "Hulk" Film?

Mark Ruffalo recently sat down with Empire and had this to say: "They set up several pictures over a couple of years and possibly there will be a Hulk movie. There'll probably be a couple more Avengers too, which would be fun."

I don't know what to think. I love the casting of Ruffalo for the Hulk in The Avengers movie, but I'm kind of burned out on the character all together. Maybe I'll feel different in 3 years after The Avengers has been released and everyone is singing its praises (or hates it).

Also, I think Marvel learned a lot and did some great things with The Incredible Hulk starring Edward Norton. I think they can build on that success and create another story worth telling where we actually care about the big green monster. Read Empire's entire article. He gives Norton some props as well.

Now rumor has it, and there's proof in the comics, that Hulk may be the villain in The Avengers. Check out The Ultimates series of The Avengers. This would be interesting to say the least; The Avengers assembling to take down one of their own. I could be wrong, because there's a rumor that Hulk's nemesis, Abomination, is the Avenger's main villain (he doesn't die at the end of The Incredible Hulk). Either way, I'm waiting to hear more details before I decide. What do you think about a Mark Ruffalo stand-alone Hulk film?

Edward Norton's Official Response to "The Avengers" Fiasco...

I read this really early in the day and wasn't sure if I even wanted to post it. But it's late, I'm up, why not? Edward Norton officially responded to The Avengers fiasco that was made public this past weekend. Here's a quick summary and then Norton's response via his Facebook page.

1. Rumor hits the web that Edward Norton will not reprise his role as the Hulk in The Avengers movie.

2. President of production for Marvel, Kevin Friege releases a statement about why they chose to "fire" Norton.

3. Norton's agent releases a statement defending his client and calling Friege's comments "mean spirited".

Now Norton's statement, my thought's after:

As most of you know, I don't like to talk much about the business of making movies because it means a lot to me to protect the audiences's fullest enjoyment of the 'magic' that films can have. But I am so appreciative of the outpouring of support from fans of the Hulk and the Avengers that I feel it would be rude not to respond. So here goes: It seems it won't work out for me to continue playing Bruce Banner for Marvel in "The Avengers". I sincerely hoped it could happen and be great for everyone, but it hasn't turned out as we all hoped. I know this is disappointing to may people and that makes me sad. But I am very sincerely grateful to Marvel for extending the offer and even more so for giving me the chance to be a part of the Hulk's long and excellent history. And I really can't thank the fans enough for how much enthusiasm you've sent my way about what Louis and I tried to do in our turn with the legend. It emans a lot to me. I grew up with Banner and Hulk and have been a fan of every incarnation. I'm really proud, and very blessed, to have been one of them and will be thrilled to see him live on through other actors. Hulk is bigger than all of us, that's why we love him, right?

Sincerely,

Edward Norton

I'm really surprised, pleasantly, by Norton's response to the whole thing. He's seems at peace with what's taken place, and calm about it. Other actors would have gone OFF! I think this is the best move possible by Norton. This turns Friege's comments on himself; all of a sudden Friege looks like the jerk in this whole thing. I still think all the stories about Norton are true, he's difficult, he has an attitude and ego that very few in Hollywood can match. But damn the man can act. Stay tuned in the week leading up to Comic-Con, when it's expected Marvel will announce Norton's replacement.

By the way, if you've been reading other blogs today, you read the rumor about Joaquin Phoenix getting an offer to play Bruce Banner... yeah, ummmm... that's not going to happen. Let's hope not anyway! Remember what I said... Cillian Murphy.

What now? Who should play Hulk in "The Avengers?"

So we've established Edward Norton will not be playing the Hulk anymore. It was rumored a few days ago, and I posted about it. Then the poop really hit the fan when Marvel's president of production made an official statement about WHY Norton was fired... cause he's a jerk, basically. THEN, Norton's agent responded by calling Marvel's comments "unprofessional" and in "mean spirit". Read both official statements here.

So now Matt and I sound off on who should play the Hulk after the jump.

How about Eric Bana? To remind everyone, he played Hulk in Ang Lee's version in 2003. That's FattMatt's idea by the way. I think Bana is such an underrated actor, and I thought he did what he could with Hulk; but Ang Lee ruined that film in my opinion. The action was awesome, I mean look at that scene in San Francisco, it's spectacular. The cast was great, Jennifer Connelly, not Nick Nolte. Connelly was so much better as Betty Ross than Liv Tyler was in the 2008 film. But the notorious "daddy issues" ruined the 2003 film. Lee could not balance the action and the emotion of the film; and generally misfired on the tone of the movie. Bana wont be brought back because now Marvel believes in the look of the actor matching the look of the character more than anything else. So now we get a few weeks of playing the guessing game. Matt votes Bana. Me?

I'm going to go in a different direction; Cillian Murphy. Now hold up, don't go off on me yet. Hear me out. Murphy looks EXACTLY like the modern Bruce Banner, down to the hair split down the middle of his head. In recent versions of the comics and animated DVD's, Banner is a tormented soul who would rather die than deal with being the Hulk. Murphy can play that, very easily. He was great in the recent 'Batman' movies as Scarecrow, and was a doctor at that. Murphy may not seem like the immediate choice, but he's a good one.

Who do you vote should play Bruce Banner? Should it be an established actor like Matt and I are suggesting? Or an "unknown" like Marvel is hoping for? Either way, we're all going to agree to disagree.

Edward Norton WILL NOT play the Hulk in "The Avengers" movie?

This is a late story lighting up the web. Fanboys like myself are cringing at the thought that this story ends up being real. Hit Fix broke the story just a few hours ago. Seems as though Marvel is back to their cheap ass ways and doesn't want to shell out the dough necessary to sign Norton to the superhero super-team, The Avengers. The movie has been set in motion for years; and as of last month, 90% of the cast was in place, now this? What's going on? What's the real story? Can we blame them?

As far as I knew, Norton was in. In most interviews he was adamant about coming back IF the story and director were right. Hit Fix reports that the rumored director of The Avengers, Joss Whedon and Norton met, and were both excited about getting started on the project. Well now Marvel is rumored to want an "unknown" for the project. What the heck happened?

My guess WAS the same as H.F., it's all about the Benjamin's baby. They don't want to pay for Norton's talents, so casting an unknown solves the problem. But after a little thought, I'm realizing that CAN'T be the problem. They already have big name actors, Robert Downey Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, and the list goes on and on. What was Norton going to possibly make on the movie that they can't afford? It just doesn't make sense!

My theory is this; Marvel just doesn't want anything to do with Edward Norton. The man has one of the most notorious attitudes in the business. He has problems on every set he's ever worked on, including 'Hulk'.  He fought with Marvel to re-cut the movie and lost, then refuses to do press?  Wow.  American History X is a prime example of Norton overstepping his boundaries as an actor. He apparently wasn't happy with director Tony Kaye's final cut of the movie; so Norton cut the film himself with the studio behind the directors back. When Kaye discovered what was going on, he tried to remove his name from the credits, to no avail.

After Marvel brought Norton in for 'Hulk', he wanted to change the script. Marvel agreed, which I still don't know why they would. Watch the special features to the movie and you quickly get a sense that director Louis Leterrier was not allowed to do anything without Norton's approval. After disagreeing with Leterrier about the final cut of the film, Norton refused to do any publicity for the film. What the hell is up with this guy? Is it really "the passion to turn in great work"? Or is he just an arrogant jerk?

I still think he's one of the most talented actors in Hollywood, but I also think like this; "walk like a duck, talk like a duck", you're probably the jerk everyone says you are. I would love for him to reprise his role as Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it looks like that's becoming less and less likely every day. Comic-Con is just around the corner, and yours truly will be there. As soon as we get confirmation one way or the other, we'll let you know!