Our colleague Geoff Boucher at sister blog Hero Complex delves into Marvel's pointed choice to drop Edward Norton from the company's upcoming "Avengers" movie.
"We have made the choice to not bring Ed Norton back to described the title role of Bruce Banner in 'The Avengers.' Our choice is certainly not one based on monetary factors, but instead embedded in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members," the company rebuked in a statement made to Hit Fix, which ruined the Norton tale. It marks the second time that Marvel has gone "Bewitched' and replaced a well-known actor, previously swapping out Terrence Howard for Don Cheadle as War Machine after the former might have gotten a small too precious with his hassle ahead of "Iron Man 2."
The Hero Complex post takes the tack that this is an understandable go for the studio agreed Norton's reputation as a strong personality on set and in the development process (a reputation executives came to be acquainted with firsthand after working with him, rockily, on 2008's "The Hulk.") That take stands in contrast to Hit Fix's point of view, which basically is that it could look mighty odd, both in promotional moments and on the screen, to see an unknown or lesser-name actor alongside the film's mostly A-list group.
But the truth is that it's exactly that group that probably makes this a go of less importance than it might first appear. The entire point of the "Avengers" movie (and, to a lesser extent, Marvel's studio operation in general) is to make the ensemble greater than the party. That's a creative and marketing rationale, since it means the studio can mix and match characters with ease, as it's by now begun to do with "Iron Man 2" and other movies and which will culminate with Joss Whedon's "Avengers" in two years. But possibly just as valuable, it's a production and deal-making strategy, since when you're making a slate based on ensembles, that means no single character gets too huge, which means no single actor can hold a slate hostage.
Marvel might find some initial resistance to the presence of a new Hulk. But it's not like Norton, for all his acting skills, was that deeply associated with the character anyhow. And as valuable to the canon as the Hulk is, a lot of film-goers probably be trapped up in seeing the character on screen in this context as much as they'll be scrutinizing who's playing him, especially if they're by now being feted with the reassuring sight of an iconic fixture like Robert Downey Jr., as Iron Man. We're more concerned, frankly, that the Whedon film could wind up being a mythology mash-up than we are worried about any party casting choice.
After initially absorbing the backlash that it would hire an unknown for the part, Marvel course-corrected now, saying it would hire a "name actor" to play the Hulk. That's fine to cool the initial fan reaction, but it's probably not essential for the movie. When you're construction a super-group, you can afford to replace the drummer.
–Steven Zeitchik
http://twitter.com/ZeitchikLAT
Photo: Edward Norton in The Hulk. Credit: Marvel Studios
RECENT AND RELATED:
Marvel drops Ed Norton — possibly they don't like him when he's mad
Can Iron Man stop the 3-D conversion menace?
X-Men: First Class gets on a supersonic jet
