Tag Archives: mind

‘Inception’ Director Christopher Nolan Reveals His ‘Star Wars’ Inspiration

‘I want to try and give somebody in the audience the experience I had watching that film,’ he tells MTV News. By Eric Ditzian, with reporting by Josh Horowitz Leonardo DiCaprio in “Inception” Photo: Warner Bros. The demented memory flipbook that is “Memento,” the noir-ish freakery of Gotham City in “The Dark Knight,” the intricately woven, epically scaled “Inception” — all this can be traced back to a formative experience director Christopher Nolan had at the cinema in 1977. Seven years old at the time, Nolan took in a screening of “Star Wars.” Nothing was ever the same. “That completely changed movies for me,” he told MTV News. “It changed everything, really.” Nolan had never seen a film that was so, well, intricately woven and epically scaled as George Lucas’ space odyssey. “It created a world that lived on in your mind after you saw the film and seemed to have this limitless potential,” he said. And, as Nolan explains it over three decades later, he’s made a career out of trying to instill a similar sense of wonderment for ticket buyers. “I think, for me, my whole career in making films, really every time I set out to make a film, I want to try and give somebody in the audience the experience I had watching that film, where it really felt like anything was possible in that world,” he said. “That’s a really extraordinary experience to have as a moviegoer.” Nolan started out small, shooting “Following” on a shoestring budget with a bunch of friends. He graduated to “Memento,” gaining some financial backing and the talents of professional actors. Eventually, Warner Bros. handed him the task of resurrecting the dormant “Batman” franchise. After delivering two blockbuster takes on the Caped Crusader, the studio basically gave Nolan a pile of cash and carte blanche to make a movie he’d been dreaming about for 10 years: “Inception.” As with all his earlier films, Nolan set out to deliver an experience that would create a world that lived on in the minds of moviegoers, that seemed to have limitless potential. “I think that’s the highest aspiration of the Hollywood blockbuster,” he said. Check out everything we’ve got on “Inception.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com . Related Videos On The Red Carpet At ‘The Hills’ Finale The Hills (Season 6) | Ep. 12 | ‘All Good Things…’

See the original post:
‘Inception’ Director Christopher Nolan Reveals His ‘Star Wars’ Inspiration

Public Opinion: Why be gay?

I don't know, I guess it was just something I was thinking about randomly. What convinces someone in their mind to like the same sex as them? Is it that the want to be with someone that goes through the same things as them? Is it because it's just, well, easier? Why is it? Just curious to see how different people think on this certain thing. added by: a_roxanne

‘Inception’ Stars Weigh In On Sequel Potential At Hollywood Premiere

Leonardo DiCaprio, Cillian Murphy, Lucas Haas and Dileep Rao share their thoughts on the movie’s last scene. By Kara Warner Leonardo DiCaprio attends the “Inception” Los Angeles Premiere Tuesday Photo: Steve Granitz/Getty Images HOLLYWOOD — “Inception” is shaping up to be the moviegoing event of the summer. The sci-fi thriller written and directed by “The Dark Knight” maestro Christopher Nolan has dazzled critics and whipped expectant audiences into a frenzy before its release on Friday. But one aspect that has sparked heated debate is the particularly dubious last scene. On the red carpet of the film’s L.A. premiere, MTV News asked the film’s stars to weigh-in on that compelling final moment — as well as whether an “Inception 2” is a possibility. The film’s leading man, Leonardo DiCaprio, deftly dodged revealing any particular stance on the issue. “I have my own specific take on that final scene,” DiCaprio told MTV News, leaving his opinion out of the public debate, adding instead that he hopes the audience makes up their mind for themselves. “This is an interesting movie, because I really believe people can extract what they want from this film and interpret that in a lot of different ways. I think that’s something that doesn’t come from the Hollywood studio system very often nowadays. Often times, I get scripts that came to me recycled from other ones. Chris [Nolan] pulled off something pretty ambitious, pretty existential, pretty cerebral and daring with this movie, and I jumped on the opportunity to do it and work with him.” Cillian Murphy wished to remain neutral about the last scene. “Oh, I wouldn’t want to give an opinion on that,” he said, and of the possibility of a sequel, he added, “I don’t have the authority to speak on that.” Lucas Haas proved to be far more forthcoming. “My take? I think it’s real,” he said, which, despite its seemingly vague wording, is a definitive answer/stance to the debate about that last scene. And is there room for a sequel? “Of course,” Haas said. “I think definitely.” Dileep Rao offered further insight, advising viewers to pay attention to the scene in an unusual way. “You know what, I’ll just say this: Use your ears not your eyes.” As far as a sequel goes, Rao deferred to Nolan. “That’s up to Chris,” he said. “If we’re talking about dreams, couldn’t anything happen?” Check out everything we’ve got on “Inception.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com . Related Videos ‘Inception’ Clips MTV Rough Cut: ‘Inception’ Related Photos Frame-By-Frame: “Inception” ‘Inception’ World Premiere Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, More Premiere ‘Inception’ In L.A.

More here:
‘Inception’ Stars Weigh In On Sequel Potential At Hollywood Premiere

Audrina Patridge Talks About Her ‘One True Love’ At ‘Hills’ Finale

‘He’s always been in the background,’ she says of her new boyfriend. By Jocelyn Vena, with reporting by Tim Kash Audrina Patridge Photo: John Shearer/ WireImage Audrina Patridge has had a very public private life thanks to “The Hills.” Over the show’s six seasons, viewers saw her go on bad dates and good ones. They could track her ups and downs with Justin Bobby. And in the final season, they were able to watch her have a relationship with musician Ryan Cabrera. But when MTV News got a few moments with Patridge on the finale party’s red carpet, she revealed that her new guy is actually someone viewers haven’t seen before — and someone who she’s known for quite a while. “I am with somebody else,” Patridge said. “I’m with Corey. He’s always been in the background. He’s always been my one true love.” Fans can’t blame Patridge for wanting to keep Corey private. She’s had some bad luck with introducing boyfriends to the viewing public. But despite those bad experiences, Patridge is sad to say goodbye to “The Hills.” “It’s bittersweet. It still hasn’t hit me,” she said. “It’s gonna be hard. Everybody’s gonna have a new path and new beginnings.” And her “Hills” experience will stick with her as she moves on to other projects — and friendships — beyond the show. “The worst thing is always getting judged,” she said. “It makes it easier to meet people, but harder to trust people.” On the carpet, Patridge shared she just wrapped work on “Honey 2” and that she’s embarking on other projects, including a long-rumored reality show where fans will get to meet her family. “It’s real insight into my life,” she said of the show. “I’m a little scared [to have my family on the show]. It’s really hard to let that sink in, but we’re really close. I’m really goofy. I ramble a lot. I don’t always have blank stares.” Related Videos On The Red Carpet At ‘The Hills’ Finale Related Photos The Hills Live: A Hollywood Ending Red Carpet Radar: ‘The Hills’ Best Looks The Hills: A Hollywood Ending | Red Carpet

Continued here:
Audrina Patridge Talks About Her ‘One True Love’ At ‘Hills’ Finale

‘The Hills’ Series Finale Marked By Life Decisions

Lo, Stephanie, Audrina and Kristin begin their post-show lives. By Amy Wilkinson Kristin Cavallari and Brody Jenner Photo: John Shearer/ WireImage For six seasons, the stars of “The Hills” have lived the L.A. dream — partying at Les Deux, riding on the back of bad boys’ motorcycles and swapping boyfriends like so many borrowed frocks. But during tonight’s series finale, the high-living Hollywood hotties made some serious life decisions. Lo decided that she would break her cardinal rule of not moving in with a man unless she was engaged to him. “It would mean I was starting the rest of my life,” she said as she contemplated moving in with her boyfriend, Scott. But from the sound of it, Scott won’t be waiting too long to commit. “I want this to be a long-term deal,” he said. “I want to spend the rest of my life with you. I’d marry you right now.” Though Stephanie’s far from the wedding chapel — we think — she did make her romance with motocross racer Josh official. While visiting him at the track, she made her feelings for her floppy-haired paramour plain. “You’re like the manliest guy I’ve ever dated,” she said. “But at the same time, the sweetest too. I like hanging out with you a lot.” And with that, the pair decided they didn’t want to see other people. Audrina decided what she really needed was a little distance from the drama of Hollywood, so she moved to a house in Hermosa Beach that had a view of the coastline. Meanwhile, Kristin packed up and moved to Europe to find out what life is like on the other side of the world. “I don’t want to wake up in 10 years still looking for that guy,” Kristin lamented to her friend Stacie. “Brody found his girl, so I have to go find what I want.” Though Brody tried several times to change her mind, Kristin was resolute. “I can’t believe this is really goodbye,” she said. The two hugged in front of the Hollywood sign one final time before Kristin was swept away in a black town car. Related Videos On The Red Carpet At ‘The Hills’ Finale Saying Goodbye To ‘The Hills’ Related Photos The Hills: A Hollywood Ending | Red Carpet

Read the original post:
‘The Hills’ Series Finale Marked By Life Decisions

Current Mistake

Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success. – Henry Ford That quote describes how Current should be, but it‘s not. Instead, they boldly prance around while they flawlessly display how unfair they can be towards any poster–unless they are liberals. An article about a student that doesn’t get into a yearbook makes people upset. Why? Because the yearbook is that important? No, the yearbook is not that important. It never is. It just happens to be important because the person affected is gay. It wouldn’t even be a story if the student were anyone else. People dictate that something as small as a yearbook is far more important than floods in any part of the world and it’s so important to slander and post prejudice comments against Mississippi in spite. That’s important to mention because it’s a petty situation between a student and a school. Both are being ridiculous, but one is being unfair. Who’s being unfair? This depends on where you stand. Do people who peer in from the outside know what fair is? What if someone said that the student was unfair? How angry would that make you feel? How frustrated over their presumed ignorance would that have you? That opinion could rattle some. People use African American’s past strife to compare to the cushioned life of how homosexuals are treated. There are those that think the comparison is stupid and they scoff. I think it’s awesome and I’ll use this to jump to my point…. ….Current.com is the school and my situation is similar to how that student felt because she was treated unfair. I’m not going to cry about it (thought others might make post to dictate that as if that’s a clever thing to state—but who said they were clever, certainly not me) but I’m just as frustrated and annoyed. That story has so many comments dictating what is fair, but do those same people actually understand what fair is? See, how could it not be the same? If you’re new to this situation, you may catch up with: http://www.hollywooddump.com/2010/01/current-lowdown.html and http://dorkariffic.blogspot.com/2010/02/hail-current.html Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth. – Oscar Wilde Have you seen the nasty comments certain posters make? It’s not one side over the other, because both sides of the aisle do it. You’ll see some nasty replies here. You’ll never, ever, ever, ever find a post created by me that would even rival some of the nasty comments posted to me or about me. If that’s something you question then you need to click the link and see the Current Lowdown and read those comments. Those are nasty comments. What of the comment I made in Heil Current about JanforGore? That comment isn’t nasty. Jan is not a nice person. I don’t even think I could state she’s a good person. The moment you point to a post where she disagrees and she isn’t talking down to that person, then I might change my mind. However, until then, she is exactly how I stated. Why would Current allow people to post vile comments such as calling any woman the C word? They won’t let anyone call Obama the N word cause that would be racist. Well calling a woman the C word is sexist even if it comes from a woman. They hate their own sex. Why do the few not want me to return? They fear me. Why else? When there is no enemy within, the enemies outside cannot hurt you. – African Proverb Now for a mock conversation: “Come in and please share your viewpoints,” Current said. “I love Obama,” Liberal Poster fawned. “Obama bypassed branches of government to put a 6 month moratorium on drilling. He is also ignoring the border problem–even after Arizona Democrats told him how bad it is (even though they do so to keep votes). His approval ratings are terrible. How can you love him?” Conservative Poster said. “Shut up you Bush lover. All you’re doing is complaining and it’s not even logical. Stop hating on him. He’s doing the best he can with the situation he was given by stupid Bush and you’re a racist,” Liberal Poster shouted. “That’s a personal attack. It’s against Current’s rules,” said Conservative Poster. “No it’s not. Conservatives are racist. Please look at this video where we mock the Tea Party and your views. But please remember we care about all opinions–but boy those tea party members are a group of crazies,” said Current. “They are not racist. *post video showing minorities* And their views are based on concern for what people are allowing Obama to do,” said Conservative Poster. “Shut up, Party of NO! All Tea Baggers are stupid. Are you stupid? Palin’s stupid,” shouted Liberal Poster. “No one is speaking about Palin. We’re talking about Obama. Are you going to refute the comments?” Conservative Poster asked. “I only discuss politics with logical people that agree with what I have to say, not with homophobic losers like you,” said Liberal Poster. “Another violation,” said Conservative Poster. “Nah, Tea Baggers are haters. But please continue to share,” Current said. –Current pushes an agenda that leaks onto the website. If balance existed there would be an even amount (or close to) of conservatives and liberals. But because of how Current shows bias in who they ban and why, that’s not the case. It should be shown in any discussion like Gay Marriage, but it is clear that a question “Should gay marriage be legal?” has only one answer. The answer is a liberal one, because liberals are always right. It’s really a question for show. http://dorkariffic.blogspot.com/2010/06/current-mistake.html more at link—– added by: 42

Most Transparent Administration Ever Makes Effective Reporting from Gulf a Felony

Effectively reporting on the Gulf oil spill is now a Class D felony, punishable by a fine of up to $40,000. That’s right, the most transparent administration in history has made it a felony, effective July 1, to get within 65 feet of what the Coast Guard determines are essential recovery efforts. According to Anderson Cooper, officials tried to up that number to 300 feet. Cooper, who claimed federal officials prevented CNN on two occasions from taking photographs in the gulf, seemed frustrated when he reported on the new laws the day they went into effect. The press is “not the enemy here” he pleaded. The new policies, he said, make it “very easy to hide failure, and hide incompetence.” Cooper also let loose this zinger: “Transparency is apparently not a priority with [Coast Guard Commandant] Thad Allen these days.” Ouch (full video and transcript below the fold – h/t Ron Robinson ). This is but the latest in a string of incidents that seem to have much of the country — and if Cooper is any indicator, at least a few journalists — questioning the sincerity of candidate Obama’s pledges of transparency, openness, and respect for the press. But these new regulations on press coverage of the spill have not garnered as much attention as perhaps they should — certainly not as much as similar moves during the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina (a fact that Cooper notes). Shortly after the Hurricane hit, according to the Washington Post , “FEMA refused to take reporters and photographers along on boats seeking victims in flooded areas, saying they would take up valuable space needed in the recovery effort and asked them not to take pictures of the dead.” The Post touted claims that the FEMA policy was “in line with the Bush administration’s ban on images of flag-draped U.S. military coffins returning from the Iraq war” — clearly drawing a comparison to other Bush policies rife with accusations of politically-motivated censorship. So far, the Post is silent on the criminalization — a much stronger statement of administration policy than the refusal to allow embedded reporters on rescue efforts — of media coverage in the Gulf. With a scant few exceptions, the legacy media are silent on the issue. But for his part, and to his credit, Cooper issued a heartfelt call for more press transparency: …the Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches — 65 feet. Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture. Shots of oil on beaches with booms, stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven’t been collected like they should, you can’t get close enough to see that. And, believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can’t without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges. What’s even more extraordinary is that the Coast Guard tried to make the exclusion zone 300 feet, before scaling it back to 65 feet. Here is how Admiral Allen defends it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALLEN: Well, it’s not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish either safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities for public safety or for the safety of the equipment itself. We would do this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, cruise ships going in and out of port. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So, this is the exact same logic that federal wildlife officials used to prevent CNN on two occasions from getting pictures of oiled birds that have been collected, pictures like — like the — well, that we’re about to show you which are obviously deeply disturbing, pictures of oiled gulls that we just happened to catch. Suddenly, we were told after — after that day we couldn’t catch it anymore. So, keeping prying eyes out of marshes, away from booms, off the beaches is now government policy. When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he had gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt. Now, we don’t know who these officials are. We would like to. But transparency is apparently not a high priority with Thad Allen either these days. Maybe he is accurate and some officials are concerned. And that’s their right. But we’ve heard far more from local officials about not being able to get a straight story from the government or BP. I have met countless local officials desperate for pictures to be taken and stories written about what is happening in their communities. We’re not the enemy here. Those of us down here trying to accurately show what’s happening, we are not the enemy. I have not heard about any journalist who has disrupted relief efforts. No journalist wants to be seen as having slowed down the cleanup or made things worse. If a Coast Guard official asked me to move, I would move. But to create a blanket rule that everyone has to stay 65 feet away boom and boats, that doesn’t sound like transparency. Frankly, it’s a lot like in Katrina when they tried to make it impossible to see recovery efforts of people who died in their homes. If we can’t show what is happening, warts and all, no one will see what’s happening. And that makes it very easy to hide failure and hide incompetence and makes it very hard to highlight the hard work of cleanup crews and the Coast Guard. We are not the enemy here. We found out today two public broadcasting journalists reporting on health issues say they have been blocked again and again from visiting a federal mobile medical unit in Venice, a trailer where cleanup workers are being treated. It’s known locally as the BP compound. And these two reporters say everyone they have talked to, from BP to the Coast Guard, to Health and Human Services in Washington has been giving them the runaround. We’re not talking about a CIA station here. We’re talking about a medical trailer that falls under the authority of, guess who, Thad Allen, the same Thad Allen who promised transparency all those weeks ago. We are not the enemy here.

View post:
Most Transparent Administration Ever Makes Effective Reporting from Gulf a Felony

On PBS, Oliver Stone Loved Hugo Chavez Calling Dubya the ‘Devil’: ‘It’s True’

Here’s another slightly dated example of leftist America-bashing on the taxpayer-funded airwaves over the patriotic holiday weekend. PBS talk-show host Tavis Smiley interviewed leftist director Oliver Stone on July 2 about his Hugo Chavez-smooching documentary South of the Border. Stone denounced Hillary Clinton as “an agent of the old empire game,” and when Smiley nudged Stone about Chavez’s remarks, Stone insisted he loved it when Chavez called Bush the Devil: “I think that’s a great comment. I think it’s true….He is the devil. He was.” Smiley didn’t simply celebrate Stone (as he did, with say, Van Jones, boldly professing he would take a bullet for Jones ), but he was gentle in bringing up some hard questions. He suggested he didn’t really want to dwell on the Bush-as-Satan stuff: SMILEY: If I’d wanted to, I could have done this. I didn’t want to waste our time doing it, but because the stuff is so easily found all over the internet – you know where I’m going with this. You know, on the regular, there are statements made by Chavez that cause people in this country to shudder, all kinds of things, about everything that Chavez – as you know, he’s not shy about speaking his mind. So he has made all kinds of comments about all kinds of things. None of those statements give you reason to believe that he’s gone a bit off the range? STONE: No, no. Listen, I was with him not too long ago. I was with him in 2007 and 2009. I mean, he’s under attack, but he’s a free man and I think sometimes he speaks without perhaps – he’s a big bear of a man. He’s gruff, you know, and he sometimes speaks off the cuff. He is a popular leader, but he serves the people. He’s not corrupt in any way. I find him a free soul. SMILEY: Off the cuff remarks, off the wall remarks, two different things. You think they’re off the cuff, not off the wall? STONE: Well, I don’t know which ones you’re referring to. I mean, if he’s calling Bush – “the Devil was here yesterday” – you know, I think that’s a great comment. I think it’s true. I mean, at that point, Bush was going to war in Iraq against the wishes of the majority of the United Nations. By the way, as somebody has pointed out, Chavez at the U.N. that day got the most longest applause of anybody there at the entire sessions. It’s quite something. So North America has made a big issue of everything he says, but, you know, Bush is the one who started the war. The coup d’etat of 2002, you know, was initiated by the Venezuelan oligarchy and supported and abetted by the U.S. and we make that very clear in the film. SMILEY: I’ll recall that comment about Bush as long as I live. As you may have heard – STONE: – Well, he is the devil. He was. Smiley deserves some credit for questioning around the edges about Chavez’s dictatorial tendencies, even as Stone denied it all as ridiculous. When Smiley asked whether Obama was different than Bush, he complained it was “Bush lite,” and knocked Hillary Clinton: You know, Hillary was down there a few weeks ago and there she was trying to separate Ecuador from Venezuela. She’s an agent of the old empire game. It’s a dead end for us. We keep overreaching. We want to control anybody who steps out of line, which is a regional power…. We are saying – basically, you know what it is? The pact for the New American Century, remember from the 1990s, when Bush and Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, wrote that pact about the American unilateral control of the world. We will brook the appearance. We will not allow for the emergence or any military or economic rival. I went into that in the W film I did on Bush. This is our policy and, whatever Obama says, this is what he’s pursuing in Afghanistan. There’s been no real change in that policy. We have our empire; we are number one. We are the world’s policemen and we will not brook an interference in that. The tone is lighter; the words are lighter, but it’s a soft power. It’s not strictly anti-American to knock President Bush or Hillary Clinton, but Stone had a more generic critique of “our empire,” and overall American arrogance in global affairs: STONE: The U.S. has knocked off so many reformers over the last hundred years, but they’ve all emerged independently. Except for Castro, they all went down, every single one from Guatemala, Panama, Brazil, Chile, constantly. This is the first time we have not been able to do anything. Hopefully, this is going to stay stable, but right now we’re fighting actively to get rid of them. SMILEY: You’re not naive, obviously. You like shaking things up, don’t you? STONE: No, I like – SMILEY: Yeah, you do. Come on. STONE: If I were, I’d be more political. I’d be more overt. SMILEY: This isn’t political and overt? STONE: Well, I like making movies. I love feature movies, as you know, but documentaries are fresh and they keep me humble and they keep me in the field. If I can contribute a little light to the worldwide cause and alert people in our country as to what our empire is really doing , I think I’d be doing some good in my life.

More here:
On PBS, Oliver Stone Loved Hugo Chavez Calling Dubya the ‘Devil’: ‘It’s True’

Edward Norton Won’t Play Hulk In ‘The Avengers’

Norton’s rep fires back after studio implies actor doesn’t have the necessary ‘creativity and collaborative spirit.’ By Josh Wigler Ed Norton in “The Incredible Hulk” Photo: Universal Pictures When “The Avengers” assemble in theaters everywhere in 2012, the rapidly growing superhero franchise will be minus one major player: Edward Norton will not be reprising his role as Bruce Banner, better known by mainstream moviegoers as Hulk. In response to a rumor that Norton has not been invited to reprise his role as Banner in “The Avengers,” Marvel Studios President of Production Kevin Feige released a statement to HitFix to confirm the news that the superhero team-up flick will move on without Norton’s participation. “We have made the decision to not bring Ed Norton back to portray the title role of Bruce Banner in ‘The Avengers,’ ” Feige said. “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 [Downey Jr.], Chris [Hemsworth], Chris [Evans], [Samuel L. Jackson], Scarlett [Johansson] 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.” Feige’s comments have prompted a pointed response from Brian Swardstrom of WME, Norton’s agent. “This offensive statement from Kevin Feige at Marvel is a purposefully misleading, inappropriate attempt to paint our client in a negative light,” Swardstrom said in a statement also released to HitFix . He explained that Marvel had made Norton an offer, and there had been “several weeks of civil, uncontentious discussions” before a studio rep called to say they had changed their mind. “We know a lot of fans have voiced their public disappointment with this result, but this is no excuse for Feige’s mean-spirited, accusatory comments,” Swardstrom continued. “Counter to what Kevin implies here, Edward was looking forward to the opportunity to work with [rumored director Joss Whedon] and the other actors in the ‘Avengers’ cast, many of whom are personal friends of his. Feige’s statement is unprofessional, disingenuous and clearly defamatory. Mr. Norton talent, tireless work ethic and professional integrity deserve more respect, and so do Marvel’s fans.” The absence of Norton from the final roster of “The Avengers” isn’t entirely surprising, as the actor previously told MTV News that his continuing status within the Marvel Universe was far from official. “It’s purely a function of time,” Norton said last September . “It’s always about just working things out on the schedule.” Although Norton won’t be involved in “The Avengers,” Marvel’s major motion picture event will involved regularly mentioned names including Downey as Iron Man, Hemsworth as Thor, Evans as Captain America and Jackson as Nick Fury. The suggestion of a “name actor” in Feige’s statement seems to refute initial reports that Marvel would fill the role of Banner with an unknown name. Check out everything we’ve got on “The Avengers.” For breaking news and previews of the latest comic book movies — updated around the clock — visit SplashPage.MTV.com .

Read the rest here:
Edward Norton Won’t Play Hulk In ‘The Avengers’

way back in to love lyrics Hugh Grant

Lyrics: I#39;ve been living with a shadow overhead I#39;ve been sleeping with a cloud above my bed I#39;ve been lonely for so long Trapped in the past I just can#39;t seem to move on I#39;ve been hiding all my hopes and dreams away Just in case I ever need them again someday I#39;ve been setting aside time To clear a little space in the corners of my mind All I want to do is find a way back into love I can#39;t make it through without a way back into love Oh oh oh I#39;ve been watching but

Read this article:
way back in to love lyrics Hugh Grant