Since I broke the story of the feud inside the making of The Incredible Hulk, 
I thought I'd end the story, too. Edward Norton and Marvel Studios have "settled their issues" after clashing over how to cut the $150+ million pic, an insider tells me. "But what people will see is Marvel's cut of the movie. This is not the Edward Norton cut by any means. His opinion is their cut is valid because probably it's going to make a lot of money. And, he recognizes that, if you're a businessman, that makes sense. But he would have released something a little longer, a little more character driven."
Now remember that Norton was promised big involvement and access after Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel invited the actor into the core team to rewrite Zak Penn's script. (See my previous, Ed Norton And Marvel In 'Hulk'-ing Feud.) But, in the end, Marvel ignored Norton's ideas about how to cut the film. 
(Even the film's director, Louis Leterrier just told Entertainment Weekly that the duo campaigned for a longer, more detailed film while Marvel Studios wanted a faster, leaner one, and Marvel won. "I regret that [Marvel and Norton] didn't come to an agreement where we could've all worked together,'' the helmer said.)
A Norton insider insists to me that, despite his difficult reputation, the actor is not going to cause a public stink. Even though Entertainment Weekly [which kindly credits me for my initial scoop, unlike The New York Times] gives the impression that Norton is refusing to do publicity because he denied the mag an interview. Instead, EW was given only "an exclusive 257-word Norton statement" from his publicist humiliatingly vetted by both Marvel and distributor Universal.
"He'll do stuff for the movie, certainly," my insider insists. "He really does want people to see the movie and let it speak for itself." Added a source at Universal, "Edward never does a lot of publicity anyway. But we understand he'll do important publicity." I bet he does next to none.
I've said before that Edward Norton's warm support of The Incredible Hulk is vital if the pic's gonna have any street cred. Now the movie's core fans know that Marvel put commercial viability ahead of character development. It was always a risky gambit for Marvel to start self-financing its comic book movies. So, if this film disappoints (and considering this is a sorta sequel Ang Lee's audience-dissed Hulk, that's a real possibility), it's all Maisel's fault. As an insider put it, "Maisel is an ass. There's truth in that statement."
Please, God Almighty, let LA cut the billion dollar umbilical cord to the Comic-Con geek fiefdom and move on to some other summer box-office smashing ancillary rights avenue. Make movies out of crap American Idol talent. Make movies out of Top Chef. Film a jar of mayonnaise for three hours, I don’t care. But please, please, oh PLEASE GOD stop cramming these idiotic and infantile sooper-dooper-power crap-color-corrected CG blue-screen A-list actor vehicles of vomit down our throats. They have artificially inflated the relevance of a strangely charming American children’s genre for mass export into a global market that is increasingly looking back at the United States and asking - “What the f?!?!?”. THEY ARE AS SUSPECT AS PACKAGED AMERICAN MORTGAGE SECURITIES.
I understand you are a fan Edward and Hollywood, but really - why must you force me to try to discern between The Hulk and The INCREDIBLE Hulk?
Comment by Bob F — April 17, 2008 @ 10:58 am
Whatever to this story… much like Dr. Pepper and Axl Rose, I smell ulterior motives.
Like, oh I don’t know… say an Ed Norton cut on the dvd, which is how you get true geeks to put extra dollars into your film?
The comic geeks (me being one of them) will go see the movie regardless, then the truly discerning will need to have the dvd for the Norton version.
I’ll betcha a Dr. Pepper.
And yes, Marvel had to cop to the fact that their version is more exciting, with more action, more thrills and more special effects. I don’t really see the bad publicity there.
Comment by Norton lookalike — April 17, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Edward Norton is the most monotonous actor. How did he ascend to such a position? And, why do these actors have such power?
Comment by baffling — April 17, 2008 @ 11:08 am
I think consumers are ready and smart enough that Marvel could have released both versions theatrically.
You heard what I said.
Why wait until the DVD is released before releasing the Norton version? I’d guess a third of the audience for the film are the die-hard comic book fans. Why not have selected screenings for them?
What is running the extended version on 20 screens across the country going to cost/hurt Marvel’s plans? No doubt, these screenings will all sell out anyway.
The audiences are ready for this kind of release nationally. They get it. They won’t be confused. No one seeing the regular version will feel cheated. There will be the “dork” version and the commercial version.
TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR ONCE, HOLLYWOOD.
Why does it take you 10 years to get what everyone one of your viewers already gets.
Comment by Seth — April 17, 2008 @ 11:09 am
leaner tighter action film = better. no one wants to sit through 4 hours of character development of a radioactive titan, they wanna see it smash in a bad guy’s face. Simple really.
Comment by manny — April 17, 2008 @ 11:16 am
Why doesn’t the hired help (Ed Norton) just shut the eff up and cash the check?
No one on the face of this earth is going to go see a movie about a big green monster in hopes of getting an extra half hour of exposition and “character development” nearly guaranteed to have most of the audience checking their watches.
Norton has always seemed like a punk to me. Frankly I’m surprised the producers hired this headache to begin with.
Comment by butwhatthehelldoiknow? — April 17, 2008 @ 11:22 am
If Norton really felt strong about the film, why isn’t he joing the film’s direcor to pimp it at this weekend’s New York Comic Con?
Comment by Rich D — April 17, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Nothing about this movie makes any sense but we’ll see how it plays out. Two directions.
1. The Marvel cut is a huge hit! Norton however is left with a bad taste in his mouth and refuses to do the sequel.
2. The Marvel cut bombs and Norton claims a small personal victory.
Either way, franchise outlook not so good. Probably a good thing because I for one am a fan of the Ang Lee film.
Comment by Scurmudgeon — April 17, 2008 @ 11:40 am
It’s amazing that someone who can’t open a movie and has so few commercially successful movies has such power.
Comment by He's Overrated — April 17, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Based on how bad the last one was and how it did, plus how bad the trailer for the new one is, I don’t think it really matters which cut they release, or how much pressure Norton does.
This thing has bomb written all over it.
Just like the first one. You think they would have learned their lesson, the smartest thing would have been to wait ten years for a reboot instead of three.
Comment by milo — April 17, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Now the movie’s core fans know that Marvel put commercial viability ahead of character development.
Maybe if the film tanks, Marvel will finally figure out that moviegoers really LIKE character development.
Comment by ladypeyton — April 17, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
“But he would have released something a little longer, a little more character driven.”
Did anyone tell Edward Norton that he’s only making this film because Ang Lee tried “something a little longer, a little more character driven.” I seem to be the only person on Earth who actually thinks Lee made a good movie, so there we go.
Comment by Craig Ranapia — April 17, 2008 @ 1:00 pm
Nikki Finke, starting and ending stories at her leisure. I love it.
Comment by Green Monster — April 17, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
I don’t completely agree with the statement that the hard-core fans, now aware “that Marvel put commercial viability ahead of character development,” will be less willing to embrace the film.
Frankly speaking, aside from the FF movies and parts 3 of X-Men and Spider-Man, Marvel has been truly committed to finding a great balance between its commercial needs and quality storytelling. Something that will be quite evident again this summer with Iron Man.
Sure, this movie was rushed into production and its internal problems have probably only added to flawed film to begin with, but to claim that Marvel has been ignoring character development completely is something I can’t agree with and, as a fan myself, don’t feel let down by Marvel.
Comment by DH — April 17, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
We’re talking 15 minutes and these are Marvels characters and they very much care about the film. You’re acting like that 15 minutes will make the film an A+ and without it it’s gonna be a bomb. Relax…you’ll get a directors cut. Look at the last Hulk film which was great to me (except for the ending with Dad) but was hated by many due to the many reasons including being too cerebral and not enough action. We all know these characters already the movie will be fine and I can assure you Ed Norton will support it and do the talk show rounds.
Comment by Marvel Man — April 17, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
If you look on the poster, the writing credit reads “Screenplay by Zak Penn and Edward Harrison” (Harrison being Norton’s middle name). So his misgivings are obvious…
Comment by JBM... — April 17, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
For anyone thinking leaner does mean better, I suggest taking a look at the director’s cut of DAREDEVIL. While nothing could save the poor costume design and miscasting, the story is much stronger in the director’s cut, especially with an entire subplot (with Coolio!) that ties the Matt Murdock case to Daredevil’s.
Ultimately, I think this debate is fruitless. We’ve had director’s cut DVDs for years - Norton’s version will see the light of day someday. He should concede the Marvel cut to the theaters for a higher residual on his cut’s “ultimate hulk-smash edition” DVD.
Comment by killermiller — April 17, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
May I ask who are the “hard core” fans of “The Hulk”??
Comment by zippy do — April 17, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Norton was certainly gung-ho enough to promote it at last year’s San Diego Comic Con and now that he’s done what Marvel signed a contract with him to do - they change the rules. I would tell them to take a flying leap too. Perhaps he has a reputation of being a pain but they offered him the creative input and then cut the story up for what I can only imagine is more crashing and smashing.
When will Hollywood learn without a good story you have a film that opens big and then slips to 5th or 6th in week two - never making back it’s money. Oh wait, with the way accounting in Hollywood is done no movie ever makes back it’s money.
Comment by Michele — April 17, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
I don’t get it. Why hire an actor known to be difficult but probably the only talented semi star left in hollywood to have creative input if you’re only going to cut him out in the end? Did Marvel not realize they’re making a movie about a big green guy? Of course you want it to appeal to your comic fanboy base. Which means no character development that can’t fit in 2 panels. Why the hell would you hire a “real” actor like Edward, whose fan base hasn’t grown any since “Primal Fear”? I guess it’s as smart as hiring an Indie Auteur like Ang Lee to helm a comic book story. Oops. Damn Nikke. Your politburo sleuthing skills are wasted in Hollywood. You should be working on evidence we can use for war crimes against this administration.
Comment by peggy — April 17, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
And I meant that as a compliment, if you keep scooping the NY Times, they’re gonna have to just shut down their entertainment reporting online and replace it with a link to this site!
Comment by peggy — April 17, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
(I don’t get the people here… seems like much of the middle, people without any real say, disappointed and thinking they know it all)
My opinion (and I won’t research all the numbers exactly, just as I remember it):
while xmen 3 might have made around the same money as one and two in the end it harmed the franchise, and marvel and all its future movies for being a step into just that direction - overly action oriented, blandly directed and careless where one and two hat a deeper, slower tone, that worked and contrasted the action beautifully. A movies numbers have many reasons, form the style chosen for posters (hulk looses on this, no clarity, nothing simple and intriguing), how it’s precessors and precessors in style touched the audience, when it starts, just a mood in the audience at that point of time to a tone that’s set with marketing as well as the lead. And when it comes to the lead different people bring different expectations and factors in the formal (the comments on cloony recently where hilarious - those movies would have done much worse without him).
The reason ang lees movie flopped and was badly received (two different things, see fantastic four), was as I see it the studio meddling with him. The finished movie clearly has no line in tone and tries everything at once. There is a lack of vision and this vision I believe is more important (but not as easily discussable as pace) than anything else, you can tell if it’s there and it fuels your enthusiasm but it’s hard to point out.
Eduard Norton.. I guess all commenters on this blog can recognize as star power is somebody like brad pitt, eddy murphy and.. that’s it. Actors in relation to movies and box office are more complex, saying because A starred in B and B flopped it’s reasoned to A is like last times statement that the gaming industry overtook the entertainment business. Learn to read numbers and play out scenarios without certain factors! Movie A might have sucked worse without the actor, movie B flops despite because the month was saturated and C has the problem that all recent action films sucked so bad nobody cares, with D it’s just the posters that brought no tone and curiosity along (see Pixar posters for how to do it right, color, character and plot wise. See their trailers on how to do trailers as well.)(And see DreamWorks, their approach and to which reception that in total leads to with the an audience).
Action and being fast paced alone is nothing. It bores to death if it can’t contrast to something. And there are so many versions of being fast paced form clearly readable ones to boring messes. Borne Three is a example of perfect directing.
I think: Forget your standards, look an which movies have succeeded and you’ll find ten thousand reasons for why a movie can succeed, but in the end it’s a bit of luck, the right tone, the right time and heart does matter (see enchanted, Pixar, xmen 1 and 2 etc.). With heart I mean knowing what a movie is about and letting this carry the movie. And I’m not saying you can’t trash a movie with too much character and slowness, take superman returns, just horrible, and word of mouth ruined that movie. But that’s because it overdid it, not because a slower pace is bad. Opposed to that: Ang Lee, tiger and dragon: succeeds in having a somber pace contrasted to beautiful action that shines to everything else being so clear in tone and vice versa.
And last not least: if a movie flops it doesn’t mean it was done wrong, the same movie with different marketing or released to a different time might have succeeded perfectly. And if you can’t take risks but try to play it save your just going to bore your audience to death and they’ll head somewhere else. People want excitement! (which isn’t action per se.)
Ok, I’m fully aware of above being a bit unstructured but maybe some people might get the one or other reasonable point from what’s said above.
In the end: Trust your instincts, educate your instincts, believe in the long run, be kind and patient and leave bitterness to others.
Comment by Danny — April 18, 2008 @ 4:18 am
Eff the New York Times.
Comment by (an) andrew from california — April 18, 2008 @ 8:11 am
To say that Ed Norton is “difficult to work with” is putting it very, very mildly. His problem simply boils down to this: An over-inflated sense of his talents, be it acting, and especially his writing. And he’s not polite about it, either. So.. there it is.
I’m surprised that Marvel won.
Comment by Ella — April 18, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
first off a reply to the first remark about cutting the billion dollar cord and metioning Comic Con. Just a FYI. it is the largest event of its kind in the US and grows each year. Noton Liv Tyler and others came down after shooting all night to San Deigo to promote a film that they didn’t even have video to show. As for Ed Norton himself and the movie all will do well in the end. He willdo his Leno letterman maybe one of those Access holywood shows . THe movie will sell itself . Last movie my son was like 15 and he and a friend walked out of Ang Lee’s Hulk asking Where is the villan ? now we have one a good monster for Hulk to fight. That is what comic fans want . He is a excellent actor I look forward to the Hulk vrs Iron Man vrs Batman box office duel .
Comment by Matt — April 29, 2008 @ 10:43 am