Marvel Boss Won't Confirm Norton in 'Avengers'

I've maintained since The Incredible Hulk failed to do much more business than the Ang Lee version five years earlier that we probably wouldn't see Edward Norton as Bruce Banner in The Avengers. Why dedicate that much time to something you've proven twice people don't want to see? MovieWeb asked Kevin Fiege that very question, and pay attention to his answers, which I'll compare to something a lot less concrete in a moment. "We certainly plan on it," Fiege said of having the Hulk in Avengers. "He was there in The Avengers #1 and in The Ultimates #1 so certainly the Hulk is a key part of these films leading up to The Avengers. So I certainly think Hulk will be a player on that team." What about Norton as Banner?

"A lot of it depends on the story, a lot of it depends on the schedule and a lot of it depends on the lofty ideas that we have. You also have to work with the real ties of people's schedules as to when they are available and stuff like that. So we reserve the right to say Hulk will be in it for sure, we'll see about Banner."

Translation: No. Here's why I say that. Over the weekend, Fiege was asked about a spin-off for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, and he was eager to consider that possibility, taking a much more positive stance than this "A lot of it depends on the story, a lot of it depends on the schedule..." stuff, which we all know is horseshit. And it's horseshit because not having Banner actually gives Joss Whedon more flexibility with the story. I still want Hulk to be the villain, but who knows. In any event, you've already got Sam Jackson and RDJ chewing scenery, plus Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth. Where's the room for another alter ego? Look, Marvel didn't expect Hulk to fail the second time. I mean, that's why it was remade. But when it didn't put up huge numbers, it became a bit of a liability to the Avengers franchise that had already been set in motion. So what else can Marvel do, really? The shame of it is, Norton and The Incredible Hulk are both really good. Audiences just didn't warm to it.

Comments

[Taylor]

I have to say that I really enjoyed "The Incredible Hulk" over "Hulk" mostly because it was the difference between decent and a pile of shit. You can never go wrong with Ed Norton as the lead, but the quick tie-in to the (at the time still not in production) "Avengers" flick felt forced. I would be pleased to see Norton return as Banner, partially because Bana still reeks of Ang Lee, but mostly due to the fact that Sam Jackson, Robert Downey, Jr., and Edward Norton on screen together would be awesome.

[Get The Big Picture]

And very, very expensive.

[Addison]

I think the Incredible Hulk just came out at a bad time. I mean it was right there with Iron Man and The Dark Knight which are probably the best two superhero movies ever made. So it really got cheated. Honestly I don't think the studio did enough promotion for it either.

[Volkan]

Incredible Hulk was an excellent pic. Norton was fantastic. Louis Leterrier did a great job. Hulk and Banner should be in the Avengers, which will be a trilogy so there is plenty of room for all of those characters and actor egos. Also, the expense for all those actors to be together in the Avengers trilogy is not as great as one might think because ensemble cast actors take much less than they would in a starring vehicle. So, while you might think that having Norton, Downey, Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, Jackson, Tyler, Cheadle, and Paltrow all in the trilogy would be insanely expensive, keep in mind that they would probably take about 1/4 their normal salary. Also realize that theses movies will probably gross (literally) billions worldwide and the salary thing just isn't an issue. Avengers needs Norton.