Hulk Smash! Feud Between Ed Norton And Marvel?

Published 7 years ago by , Updated July 18th, 2013 at 9:35 am,

hulkshadow Hulk Smash! Feud Between Ed Norton And Marvel?Before I start off, I just want to say I have high hopes for this movie, because I feel that the star, director and studio, along with the rest of the cast and crew, want to give us, the fans, the best movie possible.

There’s strong word that a possible feud between writer/star Edward Norton (Bruce Banner/The Hulk) and Marvel Studios is brewing over the editing of The Incredible Hulk. Specifically at issue: What’s the best “cut” for the film.

To get Norton on board as Banner/Hulk in the “re-do,” if you will, of the movie franchise, Marvel Studios allowed Norton to re-write the script, originally written by Zak Penn (X-Men: The Last Stand), plus he was allowed additional creative input into the production and editing of the film.

And apparently that’s where the alleged feud lies.

The Hulk trailer premieres Wednesday night, and Norton himself helped cut it together. But now, Marvel bigwigs are having a feud (or debate, because I hear it isn’t too bad as of yet) with Norton on how to best edit the movie, ie, which is the best edited version of the film.

With the June 13, 2008 date release coming up fast, the picture needs to be “locked” and finalized in just around a month! Yes, there will still be VFX work done, probably up to the last couple of weeks, but if Norton and the Marvel bigwigs are still debating over the cut, it could push back the lock date, which could mean more money poured into the $150 million budget to make that release date.

Vic and I have both talked a lot about the lack of advertising and marketing on the movie, just three months from its premiere. Could this be one of the reasons? Or is it just Marvel and Universal being cautious after the Ang Lee version debacle?

I think it’s the latter.

So where does this leave director Louis Leterrier? In the middle, apparently. Most directors don’t get final cut too often, so he’s just delivering the best version he and the studios, and Norton, can give to us, the fans.

My gut’s telling me that Norton’s involvement is a great thing, and they’ll get this all resolved. I hope they can come to an agreement and give us the Hulk movie we wanted five years ago! HULK SMASH!’

Source: Deadline Hollywood Daily

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. See, I see Norton’s involvement as the issue. There probably is just not enough room in the editing room for Norton, the director, Marvel, and Norton’s ego.

  2. Yea I tend to agree with you Shane.
    I remember how Kevin Costner fired Kevin Reynolds from Waterworld after Reynolds turned in his Directors cut. Costner then spent months re-editing the film with more scenes with HIM.
    The final version of that film was a (Keven Costener cut). They could write a book on how that film was made. It was chaos from day 1.
    Allthough we don’t know the real story. Sometimes the studio wants more product placement and crap like that. Who knows at this point.
    Will say that I’m more interested now to see the NEW trailer than I was 15 min ago.

  3. well, all i have to say is if you dont want your actor to edit the film then dont send him a mixed message by letting him edit your trailer.
    If they made a deal with him they should keep it.
    he rewrote the script, and starred in the film.
    its not like he hasent contributed to the project.
    it seems like he has more then kept his part of the bargain.
    I wouldnt cry “actors Ego” until i know more about nortons version of the final cut.

  4. My question is what was Norton’s motivation for requiring all of these provisions? Because he thought the film could be better than the original write, or so he could have the writer/ editor credit?

    He doesn’t seem the type to have the ego like Costner, but more likely that he wanted his name attached to a potential blockbuster with more than just an actor credit. He’s produced several movies and directed a little, but nothing too major that I know of. He’s using his actor clout to build a resume with more depth.

    That said, he’ll want a good film, not just his face cut into every scene. The problem is there are too many little things in an edit that are just preference and won’t make the overall film any better or worse. I hope that all involved recognize when to compromise so the process doesn’t drag over some minute details that most viewers wouldn’t care either way.

    “I think we should use the cut of this scere WITHOUT the Pepsi label showing”
    “Do YOU wanna pay lost product placement income?!?”
    “F*** this, I’M LEAVING”

  5. Personally, I’d say let the studio release their cut, since I get the impression they are the ones who will make the final decision anyway, and then release both cuts on the DVD release, and let the fans ultimately see them both and decide for themselves which is better.

  6. Gotta say Vic please stay on this story. This is (IMO) one of the hottest Screen Rant stories right now!

  7. Heath… I mean.

    please stay on this story. This is (IMO) one of the hottest Screen Rant stories right now!

  8. Well Gary, Norton’s problems with ego are pretty well documented. I know he had issues with the directors of American History X and The Italian Job. So it is not really a case of me “crying” anything, it looks like a case of history repeating itself.

  9. We’re all over it! I hope it gets worked out.


  10. Ah… but, Shane… Norton’s edit of ‘American History X’ also went on to become a highly praised piece of cinematic art.

    Yes, he may have an ego… and we aren’t privy to the original version of the film… but the proof appears to be in the pudding on that one.

    As for ‘The Italian Job’, I don’t know the story there except that he was contractually obligated to the film for some reason or other and – as such – “phoned in” his performance. Personally, I loved that film, so it’s a shame there was bad blood from Norton’s side.

    I guess we wait and see… but I doubt Norton’s ego is any worse than most others in Hollywood and, besides, I’d rather a creative ego ruining a film than pure money-making business principles.

  11. “I’d rather a creative ego ruining a film than pure money-making business principles”

    very well said. with the exception of Costner or course, and maybe Mel… ok just Conster. but seriously that is a great point