Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by Cth, Mar 11, 2008.
He's a busy dude. I think this is all trying to drum up contriversy where there really is none.
Correct, he is working on other projects (one reason he's not scheduled for comic-con) hence knockig out the rumors of conflict, while Gale, Louis, Ari are the ones amongst others in editing seven days a week.
Still, some official word is needed to soothe (or cause anxiety to) the minds of the fans.
You and me have had some spats in the past EB (Not big ones.) But this is the best thing I have ever read on this forum, just to let you know.
The official word from Norton:
A full and nice article with reports of what happened from the mouth of Leterrier:
Great find Mr. Blueberry!
So the obvious question to be asked is... who really wins? According to the article, "Marvel won." Is this good for the film or bad? What about the fans - whose cut would've been better for them, Marvel's or LL/Norton's? This is your chance to weigh in before the movie comes out. Speak now or forever hold your peace. You of course also have the right to remain silent.
My initial feeling is it's good that Marvel ultimately had the final say. I felt we gave the director his chance in '03 and it didn't resonate well with the masses. Any thoughts?
My thought is... no one won. As he said there really was no dispute, and had Marvel "won" I'd wager Norton would be one ticked off fellow rather than praising them and the film makers.
If there was a dispute my guess is they came to a middle ground.
Looks like the movie is leaning toward the "dumb action" side of the pendulum, which makes me nervous. Hopefuly it's successful enough to warrant an extended cut DVD, that way everybody wins.
Probably. Like they will release a 2 hour version with a longer version for a "Norton's cut" special edition DVD.
Agreed. This seems the most likely scenario.
June 13th cannot come soon enough so the real b*tching and moaning can begin. lol
Yeah, they came to a middle ground, but that means there was very much a compromise on each of their parts, with Marvel getting the edge. Thus, there are more implications than a "no one won" verdict would suggest. And you can hear it in Norton's prepared statement, the sort of resigned acceptance to it all for the sake of the movie. [Kudos to him on that, btw. It is absolutely a good sign that he agreed to drop it - to decline to talk to the press - for the betterment of the movie. We should all be grateful for that.]
But yeah, Marvel 'did' win, as the article says; it's just that whatever disagreement there was between them really didn't amount to much because Norton in particular wasn't willing to allow it to amount to much, to escalate.
So the question remains, who really wins insofar as the final cut is concerned? With Marvel getting the final say, does it mean more popcorn (smash 'em up) than angst/pathos? What do we make of the part where it says, "The company wanted to release the most commercial film possible: lots of action and a running time under two hours" and that Norton "concedes that Marvel's cut, though not what he wanted, is more commercial than his." Does this bode well for the film?
I would love to see an extended DVD edition.
Honestly thats what I thought it'd be the entire time... until I saw the trailer and little action was shown. (Granted it was a teaser, but still, it was a long teaser.)
Gave me real hope for the film itself as well as what I have read of the script.
An extended cut would be nice, but as long as the film itself is 2 hours long I'll be good. If they say an hour and a half after LL already talked about a 30 minute fight scene... well... then Frostbite will be one worried man.
I don't mind a commercial film. But that statement scares the bajesus out of me. Unless the half an hour final scene was cut down.
I am just glad Norton seems to have little resentment, meaning if the film does well he'll be back.
Well I'm glad this has been settled, and like Norton said, it was probably blown out of proportion. Reading this article, I enjoyed learning how much Leterrier and Norton worked well together, so I have real hope this film will succeed and have sequels. Contrast that to Eric Bana, who found Ang Lee's direction "ridiculously serious" and "a silent set, morbid in a lot of ways".
So I hope the new film is 125 minutes. The people making this are mature, and will come to a reasonable middle ground.
No doubt re: Norton. The article allows us all to breathe a big sigh of relief, if accurate.
About the length, if it's close to two hours, I'll be happy. If it's an hour and a half, I'm a little disappointed already.
But we already know it won't be 135 minutes. Do you really think Marvel only shaved off 10 minutes?
Like I said, I hoped they reached a compromise.
Okay, well, that tells us nothing about the movie at hand. Sequels to a movie that ends up sucking, for all intents & purposes, mean little.
Which I doubt it will.
Ever see Fantastic Four?
Yeah, I know. If by "commercial" they mean "short and campy," then I don't like the sound of "commercial." But I was wanting other people's opinions and it's been nothing short of pulling teeth, trying to get people to talk.
Shorning off ten to fifteen minutes is not going to change a film's tone. The action is still going to be brutal and visceral, not "Marco Polo".
Lame. I wanted Norton's cut.
Hence, the question: Do you really think Marvel only shaved off 10 minutes?
(i.e., Do you really think a whopping 10 minutes is what Marvel and Norton were fussing about?)