Why is Norton so mad? Initially he was not interested in doing the movie, but after pleading with him and convincing him that he would have a great deal of creative input, including working on the script, he relented and signed on for the movie. Well after shooting pretty much everything the way Norton wanted more or less, the studio decided to edit out a lot of character development and other stuff that he had put into the story. Now Norton is refusing to do press for the movie according a Fox New story.

The movie is doing well at the box office after winning the top spot this weekend, and Norton is a well established heavy hitter, but I’m not sure you can get away with this kind of stuff, even at his level. I’m curious to see if this impacts his career at all.

UPDATE: It just dawned on me, Edward Norton is just trying to make a point to the studio, it isn’t good to make Edward Norton angry, you wouldn’t like him when he’s angry!

I will make a brief list here about what was stupid about this movie, and then feel free to add to it in the comments:

1: The aliens.   Seriously, that was stupid.  I felt like I was watching The Mummy, and I enjoyed that movie, but I was expecting weirdness from that movie, Indiana Jones requires a lot more grounding in reality than something like The Mummy.

2: Nobody can survive a nuclear blast, not even in a fridge.  That was probably the moment when I really started to wonder whether this movie would be any good.

3: How did Sean Connery die?  I thought the whole struggle in the end of the third movie was to achieve immortality?  Did he get hit by a car, or die by some other means that wasn’t covered by immortality?  Or perhaps Sean Connery himself just wasn’t all that interested.

4: Fire ants eating people.  This is another part that reminded me of The Mummy, in fact it looked almost identical to the part (maybe there were several) where the guy gets eaten by the scarabs.

5: No hot girl for Shia.  In the past Indiana movies there was always a good looking girl or two, but now the only girl in the movie will remind us all of our moms.  Cate Blanchett is a good looking woman, but not so much in this movie, she seemed more lesbianish, and not in a hot way.

6: The audience is more savvy now.  It’s not really Spielberg and Lucas’ fault on this one, they tried to just make another Indiana movie that would be like the old ones and have nostalgia appeal, but the fact of the matter is audiences are smarter.  Or maybe I’m just smarter?  I was like 6 when I saw the last one, but all the same, it just felt stupid.  I felt like Spielberg was spoofing his own movie, and I’m pretty sure Mel Brooks was nowhere to be seen on the set of this one.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on why Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, what are yours?

“…My $200 million movie is being recorded on a big stack of $85 tapes. It’s scary. When I saw those little tapes come out of the thing, it reminded me of the days when I was a wedding videographer. Someone’s whole wedding is on this one tape that could easily be erased by a magnet.” “…Was it the best wedding video ever?
It was horrible. And frankly, it actually cost me money to do that job for a night, because I had to buy a suit, which I never wore again. Of the 37 jobs I’ve worked since I was 16, that was the shortest.”

In the article he talks about how they’ve been using all this new technology for the movie, and how it’s been a testing ground for quite a few things. The movie is being shot on HD. Frankly, I don’t have that much interest in learning how to work with 16mm and 35mm film, I’d rather just work with HD, but I do see the value in learning a little bit about them, I guess. Personally, I don’t think I would ever do a movie on film, HD just seems so much simpler to work with (based purely on my own reading, and absolutely no experience). I suppose next year I will have to compare what it is like learning to use both of them, and let you know about it.

Bryan Singer Story on Wired.com