Mark Ruffalo. What the kazoo??? Are you kidding me Marvel? Granted, Ang lee's Hulk film is really far superior to any adaptation to date, but I really liked Ed Norton as old Doc Banner. Ed looks like he jumped right out of the pages of the comic. He's the spitting image of Banner in my opinion and he kind of has that Bill Bixby look and presence. I can believe that Ed Norton could be a Nuclear physcist on screen, but Mark Ruffalo??? I'm so sick of Marvel recasting actors. Iron Man 2 sucked and one of the main reasosn it sucked besides being rushed to filming was the lost in continuity when they recasted the role of Stark's best friend James Rhodes. Don Cheadle is a great actor, but I found it hard to accept that he was Rhodey after Terrance Howard played the part in the original. I know Christopher Nolan recast Katie Holmes part in The Dark Knight, but at least he found a near doppelganger in Maggie Gyllenhaal. Now we have yet another actor who is playing the Hulk. So basically the last Hulk reboot meant nothing even though it's supposed to be a prequel to the much hyped "Avengers" movie. Blah!!! I'm not feeling Ruffalo as Banner at all, but we shall see.
While we are on reboots will someone tell me why Sony decided to reboot "Spider-Man" and hire an actor that is not that much younger than Tobey Maguire?? I thought Sony was suppose to be going for a much younger actor to play a teen aged Spidey. At least Sony squeezed 3 movies out of Maguire by the time he hit 30. Tobey is 35 now and still looks 25! They could have allowed him to at least finish the 4th film he was going to start filming in January 2010 instead of yanking the rug from under him. It was Sony's fault that Spider-Man 3 failed critically not Tobey or director Sam Raimi. Sam Raimi did not want to use Venom as a villain ( personally I hate Venom too) , Sony forced it on him and started making all kinds of suggestions. This new webslinger Andrew Garfield will be 30 by the time they make a second Spider-Man reboot sequel. Really, what was the point?