Surprising almost no one who’s been following this, Marvel Studios now confirms the HitFix story from yesterday about Edward Norton not reprising his role as the human half of The Hulk in “Avengers”: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-marvel-confirms-they-will-hire-new-hulk-for-avengers

The confirmation comes from an exclusive message forwared to HF by President of Production Kevin Feige, which prominently includes the following: “Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members.”

Translation: Norton is too much of a pain in the ass to work with on this big of a movie – at least from Marvel’s perspective. The fact is, Norton is notorious for forcibly inserting himself into the production side of moviemaking; a tendency that’s been jointly labeled as “passionate” or “obnoxious” depending what end you were on and what the result was. He and Marvel had a VERY public dust-up over the final cut of “The Incredible Hulk,” and they were almost-certainly dreading having to deal with that again… nevermind the unknown factor of how it’d “mesh” with having an already extra-dominant personality at the helm in Joss Whedon.

The MOST interesting thing in Feige’s letter is an outright refutation of the original reports that the role would go to an unknown. Says Feige: “We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.”

“Name actor,” as in “name you know.”

Hey, y’know what would be the BEST time to announce who it is, especially if it’s a “good” name – i.e. one that they think will make fans “get over” losing Norton really fast? Comic-Con… a few weeks from now. The timing of this is probably not an accident, and means they’re probably already well on their way to a decision.

So what’s the “name” gonna be? HitFix’s McWeeny tossed out Sharlto Copley, which makes an almost ridiculous amount of sense. And since Whedon is directing every male actor from Angel, Buffy, Firely etc. can all go on The List as well. Anyone else?

With the impending nerdgasm of “The Avengers” movie, fans with a solid grasp of history have probably been wondering what the “uh-oh” x-factor was going to end up being. Well, now we apparently may know: HitFix’s Drew McWeeny, formerly “Moriarty” of AICN, reports the not-terribly-shocking-news that while The Incredible Hulk WILL turn up in the film, he will likely not be played by Edward Norton again: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/exclusive-edward-norton-is-not-the-hulk-in-the-avengers-but-he-d-like-to-be

This will probably be spun as a cost-cutting decision, but it’s equally likely that Marvel Studios simply didn’t want to work with him again. Norton has a – perhaps overblown – reputation as an actor who insists on insinuating himself into the production side of things; and for good or one thing that’s absolutely true about Marvel Films is that they decidedly NOT running things in an “artists’ commune” style a’la Pixar. Definitely dissapointing, but for my money “how” bad this news is is heavily reliant on what movie is actually “about” – specifically, what The Hulk is DOING there.

For non-fans: Technically, Hulk was a “founding member” of The Avengers, but for obvious reasons he A.) only stuck around for two issues and B.) entered as a sort-of enemy: In Avengers #1, the heroes (Thor, Iron Man, Giant-Man and Wasp) initially come together to FIGHT Hulk, then he joins the team after it turns out he was being mind-controlled by Thor’s evil brother Loki. In Mark Millar’s “Ultimates” re-imagining (which had been called an “outline” for an Avengers movie LONG before there was ever going to be one) this was mirrored by having “fight and contain an out-of-control Hulk” be the big initial obstacle for the team.

In other words, there’s a certain amount of precedence for Hulk being the “bad guy” (tool of the bad guy?) in the film, which would necessitate that alter-ego Bruce Banner NOT be onscreen all that much (i.e. Hulk gets beaten and morphs back into “some guy playing Banner” at the VERY end.) Obviously, actor-continuity is fun, but speaking for myself if the choice is “Hulk is in the movie but with a new Banner” or “No Hulk,” I pick the first one, easily.

There’s a great, largely-unremembered Humphrey Bogart / Gloria Graham movie called “In A Lonely Place” that everyone ought to see. It’s an ultra-bleak film noir in which Bogie’s character, an alcoholic screenwriter suffering from what we’d now call PTSD, begins to put his life back together by romancing his hot neighbor (Graham)… only to see it all scuttled when he finds himself investigated for the murder of a female aquaintance. The tragic arc of the film is that it ultimately doesn’t matter if he’s innocent or not: The investigation reveals enough of his past and dark side that his few remaining friends/lovers realize that he very probably could have… and thus he’s done for. In other words, being accused and having no one doubt it is almost as bad as being guilty.

So I ask you: Regarding actor turned director turned religious-nut turned comeback-kid turned racist (prospective) woman-beater Mel Gibson… in terms of “is this the end?,” does it even MATTER if he actually “did it?” When you’re alleged to have punched your girlfriend in the face while she’s holding your baby and people’s reaction is pretty much “Yeah… that sounds plausible,” you’re DONE as any kind of viable public personality unless your name is Sheen, yes?
In any case, Radar Online now has the (apparent) audio of the infamous “raped by a pack of n****ers” conversation. WARNING: It’s a pretty hard listen: http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/07/world-exclusive-audio-mel-gibsons-explosive-racist-rant-listen-it-here

Going back to the whole “just as bad as having done it” thing, even if this were a fake or “out of context”… who’s surprised? Particularly given the pathetic, self-hating projectionism that seems to be at the root of it: The guy leaves his wife and seven kids for a hot young model… but SHE’S the “whore” and “bitch” for dressing provocatively. (From the tape: “I don’t WANT THAT girl!!!”) It’s the classic, good ol’ fashioned “damn the TEMPTRESS for ruining MY righteousness” routine, yes?

Well, given that this IS the same mind that gave us “The Passion of The Christ”… Well, are you at all surprised?

http://cdn2.themis-media.com/media/global/movies/player/flowplayer.commercial-3.1.5.swf
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1861-Predators

Intermission: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7808-An-Open-Letter-to-the-Producers-of-James-Bond

Part of what’s been great about the new Comedy Central era “Futurama” episodes is how familiar everything has been – despite the new network, DVD movie run and “down time,” everything has popped back into place like a comfortable old show… save for one difference: There’s MORE you can do on cable than network, and the writers seem to have taken the newfound freedom as an opportunity to let loose all the pent-up “M-rated” humor and storylines they couldn’t use before – “Futurama 3.0” is a MUCH raunchier, more bluntly-sexual show, even compared to the four movies.

It was a touch jarring, at first – the Zap/Leela-as-Adama/Eve episode was a note-perfect riff on the author-working-out-a-fetish substrata of pulp scifi – but in a way it’s a logical progression. One of things that’s always struck me about “Futurama” was the way it opted – being one of the only (or just THE ONLY?) successful animated sitcom that’s not built around a related family – for a thoroughly modern vision of human (etc) relations: The core group of friends/aquaintances fool around, fall into and out of relationships, have quickies, flings and whatnot… without the story “insisting” that this cause long term problems. Fry and Leela remain on/off friends-with-largely-unrequited-benefits, Amy has been with Fry, Zap and Kiff, Leela and Amy had a “moment” while transmuted into fantasy-avatars… okay, so basically it boils down to “everyone gets at least one up-to-bat with Amy,” but still it’s a decidedly progressive dynamic that you seldom see on ANY TV, let alone animated, and I dig it.

But seeing it come to some kind of “head” in last night’s ep, “Proposition Infinity,” was pretty remarkable: Bender and Amy is the sort of character-hookup that makes perfect sense only after it’s been done, and spinning it off into a social-satire riff as Bender attempts to legalize “Robosexual Marriage” turned out brilliant. Honestly, the whole thing would’ve been worth it for: “I’m a pre-op Transformer.”

I love this show.

Here’s a question I never would’ve imagined I’d have an answer to: What does it feel like to have beautiful women dressed up like anime/video-game characters asking YOU for a photo and autograph?

Answer: It feels pretty fucking awesome.

Honestly, easily one of the top ten weekends of my life. Meeting fans from as far away as England and Portugal, signing autographs, doing a panel with Spoony, GPX and the Life & Level guys, hosting my own Q&A panel, watching it get fuller with time and being applauded for broad references to “Babylon 5”, being invited up onstage with the ACTUAL ScrewAttack crew, improvising a “debate” with The Game Underthinker, meeting Keith Apicary, Brentalfloss, The Angry Nerd and the whole crew in the flesh, being treated like a goddamn rock star – or, at least, moderately-noteworthy musician – for posting jokey videos on the internet… EPIC. There’s just no other word for it.

More in-depth type stuff to come but, for now… wow, just wow.

(FYI, I’m doing this from Dallas right now – at the ScrewAttack Gaming Convention, which is pretty damn awesome so far.)

Anyway, the most frequent reaction people are having to yesterday’s casting of Andrew Garfield as the new Spider-Man is how old he is – he’s 27 – compared to everyone else they were looking at to play what was supposed to be a high-school aged version of the character?

Well, you might want to hold your horses: In his writeup of the story, HitFix’s Drew McWeeny (http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/breaking-sony-pictures-announces-andrew-garfield-for-spider-man) drops some information that’s certainly news to me (if, in fact, it’s news at all.)

Sez Drew: “What we’re hearing now though is that Parker starts the series as a college student, and that makes more sense with this casting.”

So… College-age would mean… the same as the previous movies, just with new actors and an indie rom-com helmer standing in for Sam Raimi? Or is it still “Twilight” with Spider-Man characters? I’m having trouble deciding which bad idea I hate more…

“Spider-Man: The Quest to Retain Movie-Rights” is scheduled to suck in 3D on July 3rd, 2012.

It’s not good.

It’s also not AS bad as you’ve heard.

But yeah, it’s very very not good.

If it makes money, Shayamalan might be “back” jus because he’ll have “proven” he can handle an FX-driven feature. If not… yikes.

http://cdn2.themis-media.com/media/global/movies/player/flowplayer.commercial-3.1.5.swf
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/1849-The-Last-Airbender

“Intermission” has more elaboration about Twilight and such: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/moviebob/7779-The-Problem-With-Twilight

Figures this would come when I’m trying to get some pre-flight sleep…

Yeah, I know this is about a year old at this point…

Are there any of these with Blade?