This is interesting casting.
It could work very well. Lee's HULK was great, why are they dumbing it down? Why aren't they following the same continuity (as I've understood, this is seperate, a loose sequel)?
It could work very well. Lee's HULK was great, why are they dumbing it down? Why aren't they following the same continuity (as I've understood, this is seperate, a loose sequel)?
I think this is an awful idea.
Bizarre choice in my opinion but I'll reserve full judgement until a trailer. He is one of my favourite actors but I just can't see him in this role?
[quote=Cheddar J. Cheese wrote] why are they dumbing it down? quote]
*********
Because it didn't make as much money as X-Men or Spider-Man.
*********
Because it didn't make as much money as X-Men or Spider-Man.
Noooo..... I've just read that the Hulk sequel is being written by Zak Penn who wrote (shudders just thinking about it...) Elektra and X-Men 3. That's it, the movie is screwed...
I`m surprised Norton agreed to do this, I would have thought it was somewhat beneath him .. I was hoping Eric Bana would return to the role to give the films some continuation.
As far as I`m aware the film is been produce by marvel themselves so I don`t think the budget will be very high but looking forward to this all the same ..
As far as I`m aware the film is been produce by marvel themselves so I don`t think the budget will be very high but looking forward to this all the same ..
I'm looking forward to seeing this but my expectations are low. Lee's Hulk was really good as was Bana as Banner. Norton is an unexpected choice for a replacement and I'm not sure at this point on what I think about him in the role. He seems like he would be out of place in a movie like this. Plus, it being made by the director of Unleashed, which I enjoyed but mostly for the scenes featuring Morgan Freeman over the action scenes. I'm not too worried about Zak Penn, I don't think he's to blame for X-men 3, I think that movie would have been better if it hadn't been rushed into production.
Zak Penn also did some writing on X2, which was amazing, so I wouldn't say it was entirely his fault that X3 blew ass. But it was the story that sucked, not the acting, direction or action, so it he does have some blame coming to him.
And lets not forget (or forgive him for) Elektra...
I liked the story idea for X3, I just think the whole thing was rushed into the theatres too fast to beat the release of Superman Returns. The movie would have been much better had the creative teams took more time to flesh out the story more.
Ravenwood wrote: I liked the story idea for X3, I just think the whole thing was rushed into the theatres too fast to beat the release of Superman Returns. The movie would have been much better had the creative teams took more time to flesh out the story more.
or... ya know.. not kill major characters...
So the whole emotional arc from the end of X2 with Scott Jean and Logan was so she could blow him to a million little pieces? Yea... ok.
or... ya know.. not kill major characters...
So the whole emotional arc from the end of X2 with Scott Jean and Logan was so she could blow him to a million little pieces? Yea... ok.
I agree with you on the way they treated that storyline. Cyclops was wasted in X3, his death was unecessary. It seems like they were punishing Marsden for doing Superman Returns. What I did like about the story was the cure and the idea of some people choosing it and others having it forced on them. I haven't seen this movie since it was in the theatre, I think I'm forgetting more of the movie than I thought but I still feel this movie was rushed.
Actually, there was no body for Cyclops and it cut away before he was totally destroyed, Professor X swapped bodies, and it was shown with Magneto at the end that the "cure" might not be as permanent as first thought.
So basically nothing happened that couldn't really be turned around other than Jean being skewered at the end. And in the comics Phoenix wasn't actually Jean the first time round so even that could be turned around... What an absolute crock!!
So basically nothing happened that couldn't really be turned around other than Jean being skewered at the end. And in the comics Phoenix wasn't actually Jean the first time round so even that could be turned around... What an absolute crock!!
Ed Nor is an interesting choice. Although I did like Lee's Hulk to an extent. Eric Bana was great, his facial expression captivated Spielberg and ofcourse they worked together in the awesome awesome 'Munich'. The only down side to the new Hulk is probably the dissaperence of the beautiful Jennifer Connelly.
Y'know I was really hoping that the rumors of Dominic Purcell being the new Hulk were true. That way I could brag to everyone around me that I once went to Steak & Shake with the Hulk.
I'm gonna try next to have Waffle House with Wolverine... but don't know if it'll pan out or not.
I'm gonna try next to have Waffle House with Wolverine... but don't know if it'll pan out or not.
Liv Tyler is going to be playing Betty.
These are interesting choices. it seems a little unnecessary to make another Hulk movie so soon!
Well I'd just like them to make a sequel to the '03 film rather than do a new "loosey goosey" movie that sends all continuity to Hell and back again, a demon's tale.
Cheddar J. Cheese wrote: This is interesting casting.
It could work very well. Lee's HULK was great, why are they dumbing it down? Why aren't they following the same continuity (as I've understood, this is seperate, a loose sequel)?Finally, Im not the only one that liked it
It could work very well. Lee's HULK was great, why are they dumbing it down? Why aren't they following the same continuity (as I've understood, this is seperate, a loose sequel)?Finally, Im not the only one that liked it



I was one of the minority that actually quite liked the first movie and I'm not too adverse to this choice of replacement for Eric Bana. I think that it could work quite well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/655903...