Marvel and Norton Clashing Over Final Cut of Film?

[sean61675]

You want hulk movie to be 2+ hour long?

lol so that people get bored again. I bet you the version that will hit theatres will also be a boring which means their decision to trim it down was right.

I will say this, I watched Hulk opening night in Virginia Beach by myself when I was there on business. I was extremely bored leading to the first transformation and three times as blown away when I left in that I couldn't believe how much of a let down that movie was. When I left the theater after Spider-Man 1, I was back the next day to see it again. I was so bummed the movie was over. I was almost happy when Hulk was done. I like the pilot episode for the TV show ten times more than the 2003 movie.

 

[turtlefocker]

It wasn't the length that made Ang Lee's Hulk unbearable. Many longer films have been far more enjoyable.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

You coul.........---dd ARAGGHH!!!!! ...darn, and I just bought these pants.

LOL!

Why is this discussion still going on? It was negative speculative hype, it was directly addressed by the people mentioned in the rumor, it's done.

talking about running time doesn't mean squat at this point.

I love how they mention sources and all this other crap to back up their initial statement. Norton himself put the rumor down, to quote Mr. Durden... "This conversation... is over."

Um... no. It wasn't just a rumor. There clearly was substance to it, as confirmed by the latest Empire review and well, Ms. Finke, if you can find it within yourself to lend her any credibility.

Besides, if we want to discuss the running time as an issue which possibly stems from the Marvel/Norton drama, of what concern/bother is it to you? It's not like this is a Hulk forum or anything where we're not at liberty to strike up conversations about, well, anything pertaining to the Hulk that we can't or won't normally strike up at the office water cooler. Geesh...

 

[Showtime]

I can't believe all this stemmed from Finke's blog. It's hilarious now that I know. I actually chuckled out loud at this.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

I can't believe all this stemmed from Finke's blog. It's hilarious now that I know. I actually chuckled out loud at this.

That's great. But you know, there were other sources (NY Times, Empire, etc.) corroborating the story that Ms. Finke was merely the first to break. If there was no truth to it, then other respected sources wouldn't have put their credibility on the line to also mention it.

 

[Showtime]

Not necessarily true. Empire mentioned the story was from Finke's blog, and it's not as if the NY Times has reported things that haven't turned out to be true. They reported after Finke's blog report. If you want to use Finke as a go to source, than be my guest, doesn't mean anybody else has to.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Hmm... well, if what you just said is our standard for truth-telling, then I'll gladly stand by what I said. Once again, they corroborate Ms. Finke's article with interviews they conduct themselves and bits of information they add to it. The Empire article - you know, the article you openly admit to being too lazy to read? - actually mentions that Norton cancelled the majority of his press interviews for the film at short notice. If this wasn't true - that is, if it didn't come from somewhere other than Ms. Finke - then they have no business reporting it at the risk of losing credibility when it could be readily dismissed with a quick phone call to Norton's agent.

And no, don't be silly. No one's saying you must use Ms. Finke as a "go to" source. I'm just trying to make a case that it's not wholly unsubstantiated rumor, as Nivek asserts.

Gotta run...

 

[Nivek]

Puny Bloggers.

 

[JackMercy]

I feel the need to point out here, for those who may not be aware (and this is the last I'll say about this issue), that Nikki Finke is much more than simply "a blogger." She is a journalist with years of experience who has written for many publications, nationally and internationally, and only started "the blog" in the last few years. She is, quite simply, one of the most respected (and feared) journalists writing about the industry right now.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/nikkis-bio/

During the recent strike, she was the number one newsfeed for the industry; she exposed the hypocrisies on both sides, and reported on the issues that no one else seemed to want to touch.

Yes, as Show says, you have the right to believe or not believe whatever and whomever you wish; all I'm trying to say is that when it comes to industry news & scuttlebutt, there are not many more reliable than Finke these days...

And yes, The New York Times cracked their own sources to corroborate this story...

As I said earlier, considering the situation and Norton's reputation -- and I'm not saying he's "in the wrong" here -- is it really that hard to believe this "news"?

(And frankly, Show, I'm surprised you are so skeptical...)

 

[Nivek]

Blogger.

 

[Showtime]

I feel the need to point out here, for those who may not be aware (and this is the last I'll say about this issue), that Nikki Finke is much more than simply "a blogger." She is a journalist with years of experience who has written for many publications, nationally and internationally, and only started "the blog" in the last few years. She is, quite simply, one of the most respected (and feared) journalists writing about the industry right now.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/nikkis-bio/

During the recent strike, she was the number one newsfeed for the industry; she exposed the hypocrisies on both sides, and reported on the issues that no one else seemed to want to touch.

Yes, as Show says, you have the right to believe or not believe whatever and whomever you wish; all I'm trying to say is that when it comes to industry news & scuttlebutt, there are not many more reliable than Finke these days...

And yes, The New York Times cracked their own sources to corroborate this story...

As I said earlier, considering the situation and Norton's reputation -- and I'm not saying he's "in the wrong" here -- is it really that hard to believe this "news"?

(And frankly, Show, I'm surprised you are so skeptical...)

I really don't think this whole Norton thing is as big an issue as it has been made out to be. Personal opinion. I am not trying to take away from Finke's past accomplishments or make it personal, but I like to take in multiple reports from multiple sources before I form my opinion. I have to look at more than just Finke's take or sources branching from Finke's take. That is just me.

I am not sure why you would be suprised that I am skeptical. You have to be, that is the only way you can find the truth which always lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[Showtime]

Hmm... well, if what you just said is our standard for truth-telling, then I'll gladly stand by what I said. Once again, they corroborate Ms. Finke's article with interviews they conduct themselves and bits of information they add to it. The Empire article - you know, the article you openly admit to being too lazy to read? - actually mentions that Norton cancelled the majority of his press interviews for the film at short notice. If this wasn't true - that is, if it didn't come from somewhere other than Ms. Finke - then they have no business reporting it at the risk of losing credibility when it could be readily dismissed with a quick phone call to Norton's agent.

I know how it works, but if your're saying that Empire and The New York Times are always 100% right, than I am suprised. I'm not saying that there isn't any substance to this report, I'm saying that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, not based on one report or a mixture of three.

And no, don't be silly. No one's saying you must use Ms. Finke as a "go to" source. I'm just trying to make a case that it's not wholly unsubstantiated rumor, as Nivek asserts.

Which is why I try to look at things from all angles.

 

[Sava]

It is when a lot of character development is left on the cutting room floor for the sake of the movie getting more showings in a day. As someone else said, if the final battle is indeed 26 mins long, that only leaves 90-95 mins for the rest of the story, and thats IF the movie is 2 hours long. This is a typical Fox tactic, and i for one, am not going to put up with it.

Marvel's reasons for shortening the length isnt to the benefit of the movie but to their pockets, THATS the problem.

Also, in regards to Collateral, the interaction between the characters is what makes it great, yet with a shorter run-time, we wouldnt have got a lot of that.

we'll never know until we see both versions. Marvel are also handling IM and EVERYTHING in that looks like pure gold to me, i dont think they'll go all 20th Century Fox on us with TIH. I think they are just aiming for a more normal summer blockbuster type pacing.

 

[Red Mask]

So, does the media hype mean we won't be seeing any Hulk action for the first few minutes? Like in the Ang Lee version?

 

[Kirmit]

So, does the media hype mean we won't be seeing any Hulk action for the first few minutes? Like in the Ang Lee version?

You'll see the hulk in the first 180 seconds with the action kicking in around 20 minutes into the film.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

we'll never know until we see both versions. Marvel are also handling IM and EVERYTHING in that looks like pure gold to me, i dont think they'll go all 20th Century Fox on us with TIH. I think they are just aiming for a more normal summer blockbuster type pacing.

And yet Iron Man is 125 minutes long, but they want TIH below 2 hours? Sorry it just doesnt make sense to me.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

I know how it works, but if your're saying that Empire and The New York Times are always 100% right, than I am suprised. I'm not saying that there isn't any substance to this report, I'm saying that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, not based on one report or a mixture of three.

No, of course not dude. Why would I be saying that? Again, it just seemed to me that Nivek wanted to sweep it under the rug, as if there was no truth to the Marvel/Norton saga whatsoever. As in, "Close the thread; there's no merit to this even existing as a rumor." And clearly, the story has been substantiated by multiple sources, including Marvel spokesmen themselves (if only commenting on the matter), so Nivek - for all of his pleas to the contrary - has no idea what he's talking about. I mean, geesh, the fact that a statement was even said to have been issued by Norton proves there WAS something. Plus, you have Ms. Finke getting upset that the NY Times didn't give her credit, while expressing gratitude that another source did. If there's no story, then why does she get upset? Answer: She doesn't if there's no story! Bottom line: If there was any doubt involved in the whole ordeal, it was in determining who deserved the credit for breaking the story first. That it WAS a story was never in doubt. And Ms. Finke, if not deserving of the credit, clearly wanted it.

Which is why I try to look at things from all angles.

As am I, my friend... as am I.

 

[Sava]

And yet Iron Man is 125 minutes long, but they want TIH below 2 hours? Sorry it just doesnt make sense to me.

its only going to be 10mins more, if the movie is written well, that shouldnt matter.

 

[Showtime]

No, of course not dude. Why would I be saying that? Again, it just seemed to me that Nivek wanted to sweep it under the rug, as if there was no truth to the Marvel/Norton saga whatsoever. As in, "Close the thread; there's no merit to this even existing as a rumor." And clearly, the story has been substantiated by multiple sources, including Marvel spokesmen themselves (if only commenting on the matter), so Nivek - for all of his pleas to the contrary - has no idea what he's talking about. I mean, geesh, the fact that a statement was even said to have been issued by Norton proves there WAS something. Plus, you have Ms. Finke getting upset that the NY Times didn't give her credit, while expressing gratitude that another source did. If there's no story, then why does she get upset? Answer: She doesn't if there's no story! Bottom line: If there was any doubt involved in the whole ordeal, it was in determining who deserved the credit for breaking the story first. That it WAS a story was never in doubt. And Ms. Finke, if not deserving of the credit, clearly wanted it.

As am I, my friend... as am I.

Ahhh I see. Ok. We're pretty much on the same page, that something is going on then. I was just suprised it started at Finke's Blog and I don't think it is as BIG as it's being made out to be.

Again not trying to take away anything from Finke, I hear these types of stories all the time behind the scenes. I try and take it all in and use my judgement before passing stories on and what not. I am not saying that Finke's story needs to be checked, but I like to check out multiple sources to grasp the entire story.

 

[Nivek]

No, of course not dude. Why would I be saying that? Again, it just seemed to me that Nivek wanted to sweep it under the rug, as if there was no truth to the Marvel/Norton saga whatsoever. As in, "Close the thread; there's no merit to this even existing as a rumor." And clearly, the story has been substantiated by multiple sources, including Marvel spokesmen themselves (if only commenting on the matter), so Nivek - for all of his pleas to the contrary - has no idea what he's talking about. I mean, geesh, the fact that a statement was even said to have been issued by Norton proves there WAS something. Plus, you have Ms. Finke getting upset that the NY Times didn't give her credit, while expressing gratitude that another source did. If there's no story, then why does she get upset? Answer: She doesn't if there's no story! Bottom line: If there was any doubt involved in the whole ordeal, it was in determining who deserved the credit for breaking the story first. That it WAS a story was never in doubt. And Ms. Finke, if not deserving of the credit, clearly wanted it.

But Norton coming out and making a statement just shows how out of hand set rumors get, and maybe someone just said enough already. Thats what it reads like to me. Them saying "Despite what the rags you read wherever say, everything is going fine, we're editing it. Theres some internal debate, but thats what happens in editing. So just chill out, your going to get your movie."

All you need to start a rumor like this on set is to have some pole holding labor monkey on set get rubbed the wrong way, and drop one of these internet tabloid people a line that there are some difficulties on set, Norton is a control freak. Would not be the first and last time this crap has happened, and it creates a negative stain that these vultures love to lick at (As we see).

 

[Red Mask]

its only going to be 10mins more, if the movie is written well, that shouldnt matter.

Yeah, but some people might be burned out from long films. Last year was awful. I'm glad FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer wasn't so long. Pirates and **** was unbearable.

Still, giant monsters, military complex, & mass destruction is never boring. People loved Cloverfield, right?

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Ahhh I see. Ok. We're pretty much on the same page, that something is going on then. I was just suprised it started at Finke's Blog and I don't think it is as BIG as it's being made out to be.

Again not trying to take away anything from Finke, I hear these types of stories all the time behind the scenes. I try and take it all in and use my judgement before passing stories on and what not. I am not saying that Finke's story needs to be checked, but I like to check out multiple sources to grasp the entire story.

Good, we're on the same page then. Admittedly, I think I'm more gullible than most, so I probably was a little too willing to believe Finke's accounts at first. But yeah, it's clearly not that big a deal, especially after Comic-Con, where it was pretty much dismissed in its entirety. In my opinion, Marvel is now trying to sweep it under the rug - to play it off as though it never happened - but kudos to the investigative reporting conducted by the various sources that sought to get to the bottom of it before Marvel could do that. Whether you agree or not, journalists have an important civil responsibility to society, and we should be thanking the Finke types out there who have a knack for sniffing out the truth. But Comic-Con pretty much deems the Marvel/Norton saga null & void, ancient history, irrelevant, etc., so I think we can now safely let this thread rest in peace.

But Norton coming out and making a statement just shows how out of hand set rumors get, and maybe someone just said enough already. Thats what it reads like to me. Them saying "Despite what the rags you read wherever say, everything is going fine, we're editing it. Theres some internal debate, but thats what happens in editing. So just chill out, your going to get your movie."

All you need to start a rumor like this on set is to have some pole holding labor monkey on set get rubbed the wrong way, and drop one of these internet tabloid people a line that there are some difficulties on set, Norton is a control freak. Would not be the first and last time this crap has happened, and it creates a negative stain that these vultures love to lick at (As we see).

I think one has to view Norton's actions as being damage control, and nothing more (or less). To me, it's clear there was something - some substance to the rumor - but Marvel and Norton, together, were quick to put out the fire, so kudos to them.

It makes us wonder, though, y'know? What goes on behind the scenes. What if the rumors hadn't been leaked - would Marvel and Norton have kept going at it? Would there've been no peaceable resolution, as it seems we now have? And what about the movie's run time? I'm still not sure that we've seen just how far the ripple effect carries. We don't know anything, really, as to what it means that Marvel is getting their way. Iron Man and TIH are their two pilot projects, as you know. After hearing the reviews from Comic-Con, I'm willing to put my trust in them just a little more.

Yeah, but some people might be burned out from long films. Last year was awful. I'm glad FF: Rise of the Silver Surfer wasn't so long. Pirates and **** was unbearable.

Still, giant monsters, military complex, & mass destruction is never boring. People loved Cloverfield, right?

Nicely stated. Cloverfield will, for me, go down as a freak of nature... a phenomenon wherein we, the audience, are entirely willing to be duped into watching a movie that reveals almost nothing as to its plot through what were sketchy, at best, trailers.

 

[Red Mask]

Yah. There's a sucker born every minute. Now let's see what happens when there's more quality in the story.

 

[ultimatefan]

One more chapter: in this article, Leterrier denies that Norton was difficult or there was a dispute, and insists both him and Norton are proud of the movie:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=52730

My take is: I´ll see the movie and judge for myself. If it feels like the theatrical cut of DD, where the movie clearly feels like "chopped" and incomplete, then Leterrier and Norton´s recent statements are BS.

 

[Nivek]

Ha, seems that the interview above jives with what I said earlier, that this is just an annoying rumer that this "reporter" wont let die.