Of the big three comic films due next year, this is the one I'm looking forward to the most. After that, Edward Norton as The Incredible Hulk. Lastly, what will likely be another mixture of solid character work and lacklustre action from Christopher Nolan.

Norton as Hulk is a great idea.

P.S. Speaking of CHUD, www.chud.com are reporting that Terence Howard was hinting he'll wear the War Machine suit in this Iron Man film. Could be bollocks, of course, but you never know.

It looks good, doesn't it, just pillow talk? I love the lumbering prototype suit, then seeing the sleeker suit at the end was the cherry on top. I don't know what it is about this Iron Man, since I don't know a huge amount about the comic, but with every new piece of news I get a little bit more excited.

And I believe I'm much slower than you since I didn't even know about this Dailymotion stuff.

By the way, how cool is it to hear Downey Jr. describe himself as a geek and talk about having a nerd-gasm and sound like he actually means it? :^D

what examples of norton's writing are you aware of? I know he did an uncredited polish on Frida (it's about leftist artists, I'm sure you loved it), redid american history x (I dare someone to say that movie was poorly done)...I know he's working on motherless brooklyn, but it's not out yet.

so what do you base this "norton can't write for shit" idea on?

or, like always, do you simply hate him because he's a liberal, and champions causes like low income housing and solar energy in CA?

bashing Norton, I mean come on...next tell me how Don Cheadle sucked in Hotel Rwanda, and scientology is a worthwhile religion...

. . . which is going to. Be. Huge. Good actor, that Downey. He'll pull it off.

Methinks he won't be interested in the inevitable sequel as he'll be WAY marketable again after this biggie.

We'll like the next guy for Stark/Iron M.

As for the Hulk bad news about Norton's rewrites, I truly hope they're exagerated. The first one was lacking, but it was better than X3 at least... Now with the crappy Unleashed and Transporter flicks onboard I fear the worse, too bad for Zak Penn he's a decent director but his comic scripts will go down in history as AkivaGoldsman-worthy. Hey, maybe someday he'll get an oscar, who knows?

As for Hulk, I truly dig the character so I'm gonna give even the crappier-looking movie a big chance. I hate the director and I'm amazed at how late they are in their schedule. Iron Man wrapped while they still didn't shot a single frame with Norton. It sounds bad and I'd hate a prima-donna actor (who obviously despises the genre movies) ruin the efforts of hard-working people who have everything to prove: both Penn and Leterrier have to redeem for their lame past movies, and since the first Hulk is hated by most it was a good (missed?) opportunity. I hate when it happens.

As I remember, Norton was given the right to re-cut a lot of it, and managed to boost the Approval rating a little bit. However, Tony Kaye (I hope that's right) fucking HATED his cut and (as the man has a gigantic ego- he published advertisements stating that he was the most important British Director since Hitchcock, before having filmed anything at all-for fuck's sake) wanted to re-do it himself. His version, at least in his own mind, would have been different, darker and arguably superior to the one that was released. However, he fucked about so much that the studio (who had given him a truly staggering amount of leeway) lost patience and just released the Norton version.

Kaye then retaliated with the stupid variety ads.

There was a lengthy interview with him recently in the Sunday telegraph, and Kaye admitted to actually going crazy during the editing process for that film.

So which version is/ would have been better? My money is on Kaye's- but we will never know, and Norton's is still a fucking good film. Really, the whole story is a complete mess.

keeping the faith was a fun little movie, but norton didn't write that, he directed it. and you didn't mention at all the 2 works I mentioned (frida and american history x) where I think it's apparent that his input, at the very least, didn't hurt the films. and probably made them better.

edward norton is a great actor. this is a man that got an academy award nomination in his first film role.

in contrast, you are an angry talkbacker that believes the conservative party was responsible for the civil rights movement.

instead of lashing out with insults at me, maybe give me some concrete examples of norton being "notorious in hollywood" for fucking up projects...with all of your high level inside info and friends that you love to talk about, I'm sure you could give us a little insight.

and although being a PA on a reality show is a little below me, I'm really not insulted when you pull the "you're a nothing on hollywood!!!" card. it's petty, and what's worse, ineffective...I'm very happy with how things are going for me. I get to have dinner with one of my favorite directors later this month, since I have a short film showing at an awards dinner where he's receiving an honorarium. and that's fine by me. I don't hear gossip from A-lister assistants about who hates whom, and why, as you seem to get. but then again, that's not really as important to me...

do me a favor, though. in your reply, put all of the petty and mostly non-sensical insults towards me at the beginning of the post, then do a paragraph break, and then post the actual response. it's hard to weed through your posts when they're all mixed together. thanks!