57

The 2008 film "The Incredible Hulk" was the second film in setting up the MCU.

It has a post credit scene where Tony Stark meets General Ross for a possible candidature for Hulk as a part of the Avengers.

But then Edward Norton was replaced by Mark Ruffalo to play the role of Bruce Banner. Why?

Mithical
  • 38,898
  • 17
  • 178
  • 229
Md Danish Khan
  • 1,622
  • 1
  • 14
  • 22

2 Answers2

64

Ed Norton spoke to this issue in an interview with NPR. The very short answer is that he deeply disliked the "roadshow" aspect of marketing a major tentpole film and wasn't willing to compromise.

“My feeling was that I experimented and experienced what I wanted to. I really, really enjoyed it. And yet, I looked at the balance of time in life that one spends not only making those sorts of films but then especially putting them out, and the obligations that rightly come with that."

He also stated that he feared becoming type-cast.

"There were just a lot of things—I wanted more diversity. I sort of chose to continue on my path of having a diversity of experiences. Maybe on some unconscious level, I didn’t want to have an association with one thing in any way degrade my effectiveness as an actor, in characters. I think you can sort of do anything once, but if you do it too many times, it can become a suit that’s hard to take off, in other peoples’ eyes. And if I had continued on with it, I wouldn’t have made Moonrise Kingdom, or Grand Budapest, or Birdman, because those all overlapped with [Avengers]. And those were more the priority for me, but I continue to be a fan and I’m really, really happy I got to do it once.”

Valorum
  • 689,072
  • 162
  • 4,636
  • 4,873
  • 2
    Gotta wonder about the whole "I didn't want to get typecast" thing. Being The Hulk certainly didn't stop Mark Ruffalo from being in Now You See Me and dong a really amazing job there... – Mason Wheeler Mar 28 '16 at 17:10
  • 8
    @MasonWheeler - Personally I can understand his thinking. The after-marketing for these films can last months, during which time you're basically excluded from having any free time, nor working on any other projects. If you factor in the follow up films, you're basically making these your career for the next 7 years if you sign a three film deal – Valorum Mar 28 '16 at 17:15
  • 7
    So then how did Mark Ruffalo pull it off? How did Robert Downey Jr. find the time to be Sherlock Holmes twice while he was also being Tony Stark? Or Scarlett Johansson and that awful thing about unlocking her brain's potential whose name I can't recall at the moment? (Not to mention Jim Caviezel doing multiple movies while starring in a lead role in Person of Interest, just off the top of my head.) It would seem that your theory is contradicted by observable evidence. – Mason Wheeler Mar 28 '16 at 17:20
  • 10
    @MasonWheeler - I'm not saying that you can't do the occasional role in between your obligations, just that during the pre-release phase, it's a 3 to 6 month extravaganza of worldwide interviews, trips, press-junkets. As compared to a normal film release where you basically do a few weeks and that's it. Also, all the people you're describing are well known workaholics. – Valorum Mar 28 '16 at 17:30
  • 1
    You never saw Christopher Lee complain about being typecast and his career is iconic; let alone the myriad of accomplishments outside his acting roles and awards. Norton missed a huge opportunity. – Bron Davies Mar 29 '16 at 14:46
  • 5
    @BronDavies - Christopher Lee spent decades trying to get away from his typecasting, to the point that he traveled to another continent and starred in any old rubbish just so that people would stop talking about his being Dracula; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/8316999/Interview-Christopher-Lee.html – Valorum Mar 29 '16 at 15:28
  • 2
    @BronDavies - Here's an interview where Lee spends several minutes complaining about being typecast :-) http://www.npr.org/2015/06/12/413936419/listen-back-to-a-1990-interview-with-actor-christopher-lee – Valorum Mar 29 '16 at 15:30
  • I guess the general public here on SFF decided to side with Norton over here. – ibid Apr 10 '16 at 15:58
  • @ibid - looks like :-) – Valorum Apr 10 '16 at 16:26
  • The OP, however, decided to side with Feige. :) – ibid May 08 '16 at 01:47
  • @ibid - Ah well, there's no accounting for taste. – Valorum May 08 '16 at 07:51
  • 1
    Personally, I've never understood the artsy aspect of acting. I'm glad Norton is happy, and we got Ruffalo instead, so it's all good... but I've never even HEARD of "Moonrise Kingdom" or "Grand Budapest", and "Birdman" wasn't exactly a cinematic masterpiece. – Omegacron Nov 14 '17 at 20:57
  • 4
    @Omegacron - Birdman won the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Cinematography, is critically acclaimed, has a 92% on RottenTomatoes and was a strong financial success, netting 8 times its production budget. If that's not your idea of a cinematic masterpiece, I really don't know what is. – Valorum Nov 14 '17 at 21:00
  • 1
    @Valorum - yes, but was it fun to watch? That's all that matters in my book, and although I'm a Keaton fan, it was kind of... boring. I generally seem to feel the opposite of whatever the critics and/or Oscars think LOL – Omegacron Nov 14 '17 at 21:23
  • 1
    @Omegacron - Yes, I felt that it was a modern classic and a film that'll still be on people's radars in twenty years time, unlike whatever populist crap Marvel has farted out this month. – Valorum Nov 14 '17 at 21:38
  • 1
    I... I... blasphemy... heathen... I can't even... – Omegacron Nov 14 '17 at 21:40
  • I think the bottom line of what he's saying is that doing the same character again and again is just not interesting as an actor. He could have made other films if he continued with Marvel, obviously, but not the three films he specifically mentioned, because they overlapped with the other avengers films. – Wade Jun 26 '21 at 21:16
40

He allegedly didn't get along well with others

We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in the Avengers. Our decision is definitely not one based on monetary factors, but instead rooted in the need for an actor who embodies the creativity and collaborative spirit of our other talented cast members. The Avengers demands players who thrive working as part of an ensemble, as evidenced by Robert, Chris H, Chris E, Sam, Scarlett, and all of our talented casts. We are looking to announce a name actor who fulfills these requirements, and is passionate about the iconic role in the coming weeks.
- Kevin Feige talking to Hitflix

Lightness Races in Orbit
  • 12,202
  • 3
  • 49
  • 81
ibid
  • 93,732
  • 37
  • 488
  • 567
  • 8
    There are, of course two sides to every story :-) – Valorum Mar 27 '16 at 19:56
  • 8
    Norton's agent says that they actually offered him the part and referred to Feige's comments as "mean spirited" and "accusatory" – Valorum Mar 27 '16 at 20:01
  • 8
    Edward Norton's response was that this comment was a "cheap and unnecessary representation that [the decision] was about things other than money." and that "at the end of the day it was just flat out a business decision”, referring to their comments as "low, unprofessional, and very dishonest.” – Valorum Mar 27 '16 at 20:04
  • 7
    Who's Kevin Feige? A producer? (I'll just google it, but it would be good to have it in the answer) Ah: Producer and President of Marvel Studios (and apparently kind of a jerk) – Xen2050 Mar 28 '16 at 07:24
  • 7
    The thing is, these could both be true. Norton was prioritizing things that meant he wasn't willing to do what the studio felt they needed. So they found someone equally good who would. Feige's comment has a lot of spin, but so does Norton's. If nothing else, "I wanted more diversity. I sort of chose to continue on my path of having a diversity of experiences." doesn't sound exactly like "flat out a business decision". – deworde Mar 28 '16 at 09:19
  • @Valorum: Your linked statement deserves to be added to this answer. – ThePopMachine Feb 23 '17 at 15:35
  • @Thepopmachine - I shall leave that to Ibid's judgement – Valorum Feb 23 '17 at 17:20
  • @Valorum - I like the way it is now. Two separate answers representing two people's statements about "what really happened". The votes and/or checkmarks indicate which story the community is more willing to accept. (Of course, the truth always lies halfway between the two extremes.) – ibid Feb 23 '17 at 18:02
  • @ibid? What say you? – ThePopMachine Feb 23 '17 at 18:28
  • @ibid: Sorry, didn't notice. But I'd question what the checkmark indicates w.r.t. the community, given that the other answer has many more votes. If no answer were accepted, I'd agree with you, but as it is, the appearance of the checkmark makes it not immediately apparent there are two sides. – ThePopMachine Feb 23 '17 at 18:51
  • @ibid.... which is why it would be good to put both sides in the same answer. It is not a contest. We want the best most complete answer possible. It is not the role of the voting to decide whose side is more believable. The complete answer gives both sides in this case. (Especially since one is a direct reaction to the other. The complete story involves the relationship between both.) – ThePopMachine Feb 23 '17 at 19:01