'Captain America,' 'Thor' in 3-D, More Hulk Rumors

I'm beginning to think that maybe Marvel Comics planned the next two weeks out in advance. As you know, Comic-Con hits San Diego before the end of the month, and there's talk that Marvel will do a little pimping for The Avengers. That doesn't mean just one movie, either. It's three: Avengers, Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger. First is the official announcement from Marvel's Kevin Feige that Thor and Cap will be in 3-D. They're not shot with 3-D cameras, apparently, although that was tried with Captain America. The photo above, which again calls to mind my favorite euphemism for a deviant sex act, The Eyepatched Odin, was released to Hero Complex along with Feige's comments about 3-D. "When you're working with a director like Ken Branagh or Joe Johnston, they're not going to settle for less than perfect image," Feige said, forgetting nearly all of Johnston's work. "They're not going to settle for something that isn't up to the artistry of everything else they've done on the film...they're not going to put on some overlay in the last 10 to 12 weeks of post-production for a fiscal reason." That, of course, is a shot at the industry in general, drunk with the belief that because Avatar and Alice in Wonderland made big money and they're in 3-D, it's because of the 3-D. That's not true, or not wholly true. The 3-D just helped them make more money. However, I'm unconvinced that this is really any different. "I'd say there's not a great feeling out there for conversion based on some of the films that may have succeeded financially but had their artistry come under fire," Feige added, pointedly but anonymously targeting Clash of the Titans. But I'm not sure just giving it more time makes the conversion any better. I'm sure it could be an improvement over what we saw in Titans, but 30% better, a reflection of the ticket price increases? As for the greatest hits collection, it's been in the news for several days because of the Edward Norton brouhaha: He was dressed down by the company's Kevin Feige in an informal press release revealing that they'll go a different direction with Bruce Banner. That lasted three days, with Norton finally writing fans a very classy note expressing his disappointment. On the same day, there was a rumor that Joaquin Phoenix might play Banner, but this option is far better. Deadline says Mark Ruffalo has been offered the gig, and you have to think if it's true that Robert Downey, Jr. did a little whisper for that. The two appeared together in Zodiac, one of the best films of the past decade and a movie I just watched again for about the twelfth time over the weekend. I see it. It's an even bigger leap from Banner to Hulk with him in the role because Ruffalo is generally very softspoken in his films, which isn't always the case for Norton or Phoenix. Hero Complex also lists David Tenant, Adrien Brody and our suggestion, Nathan Fillion, as options for Bruce Banner. But we'll see what happens...and probably at Comic-Con.

Comments

[Asana]

Please make it stop, that pic hurts my eyes and it's more reminiscent of that molded look Clooney sported in his turn at Bat than the crap done to Ryan Reynolds for Lantern.

[Navillus]

That looks god awful.... I just went from excited to go to the theatre to may not even rent the movie. I like ruffalo as the mild mannered bruce banner. That would really work. Not sure about Nathan Fillion. I like him in firefly but he's terrible in Castle, not sure he's up to the task

[vinyl sign]

Hi,

Really this pic hurts! You must stop marketing this over here at least

Thanks,
MarkP