It's difficult (and a little silly) to try and judge an entire quarter-year's movies in one lump sum -- but that's what we seem to do at the end of every Summer Movie Season. That's when all our excitement, expectations, and final reactions come colliding together and we find ourselves thinking: "Was I actually looking forward to that piece of crap for four months?" But to me, each summer is like a walk through a carnival: Some of the attractions dazzle me, others simply don't interest me, and a few are just a waste of tickets. But once early May rolls around, I'm always ready for another trip to the Hollywood Movie Carnival. (It's where you find all the tentpoles!)

So while I'm elated to greet the upcoming season of "prestige movies," there's little denying that we've had one hell of a good summer, cinematical-ly speaking. I'm not talking about box office grosses, because frankly that stuff is so unimportant. What matters is that we got some good flicks, a few pieces of mindless (yet well-made) popcorn adventures, and even a few great films that will enjoy a very long shelf life. So while I'm not exactly sure that 2008 represents the finest Summer Movie Season of all time, I'd definitely say it was more good than bad. But if you can think of a summer that was better than this one, you know where to throw your comments. (In the comments section.)

I haven't seen this weekend's The Incredible Hulk yet, and will do so a little begrudgingly because it's an implicit (or explicit, depending on whom you ask) diss of Ang Lee's Hulk, a film I admire. But to the extent my interest in the Louis Leterrier version is piqued, it's mostly because of the casting of Edward Norton as the title character's alter ego. It's such an interesting choice -- partly because Norton usually stays away from projects like this, partly because he's so uniquely gifted, and partly because my mind just reels at hearing "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry" coming out of his mouth. I'll watch The Incredible Hulk less because I want to see another movie about Bruce Banner than because I'm curious to see Norton's interpretation of him.

All of which got me thinking about superhero/comic book casting in general. It's a subject that attracts a lot of breathless speculation every time a new movie is in the works, and there's rarely consensus on anything. In this edition of Cinematical Seven, I take a look back at what I think have been the most inspired, interesting, or appropriate superhero (and villain, because why not?) casting choices in recent history -- not so much the resulting performances (though it can be hard to distinguish in hindsight) but the initial casting decisions.

As I like to do with these lists, I tried to mix the obvious with the out-of-the-blue, so feel free to weigh in with what I unjustly left out. In no particular order:

Back and forth, back and forth -- The LA Times have finally come out and cleared up the rumor that Edward Norton started during ComicCon. As previously discussed, it was during Marvel's The Incredible Hulk panel where Norton made a comment that suggested he was writing the script. This confused a lot of people (including me) who were under the assumption that Zak Penn had (and was) penning the kind-of-sequel-but-not. Well, now it seems we know what happened. According to The LA Times, Penn was indeed the original writer and had written three drafts of the script prior to production. However, when the script needed more work -- and with Penn busy promoting his indie mockumentary The Grand -- Norton stepped in, offered up his own ideas, and came on as not only a writer, but also the film's star.

This, of course, is the story we're being told. As The Times even suggests, Norton is somewhat known around town for strong-arming his way into the writer's seat. There are rumors that he took it upon himself to re-write dialogue during Brett Ratner's Red Dragon -- not just his own, but also Anthony Hopkins'. Norton's reps insist that Ratner asked the actor for help, but others beg to differ -- not that it matters much; the film still turned out like crap. Keep in mind I'm in no way saying that Norton decided to take the role on the condition that he could re-write Penn's script, but it was part of his initial deal. And not for nothing, but if I was Penn, I'd be pretty pissed that I spent a whole year on three different versions of a script only to watch Norton come in and change up the entire thing. For all we know, Norton's additions helped the film, but one day I'd love to get my hands on both versions to see if Penn's would've translated better to the big screen. The Incredible Hulk is set to smash its way into theaters on June 13.

If you just casually glanced through Kevin Kelly's superlative coverage of the San Diego Comic Con Marvel event, then you may have overlooked a tidbit from Edward Norton that will have the Incredible Hulk producers wringing their hands while screenwriter Zak Penn politely asks the Writers Guild for a friendly arbitration. What was it that Mr. Norton said?

"Well, you're making me be immodest ... I came into this and I wrote the screenplay. I was a Marvel kid growing up, and I used to subscribe to a lot of the books. Remember when they used to come in plastic with the little piece of scotch tape on the back? This story has almost limitless potential in it to be remade and redone. It's a really classic modern mythology."

Hmm. Now, I know full well that Mr. Norton is a multi-talented guy. In addition to being Oscar-nominated two times in three years (for Primal Fear and American History X), he's been consistently strong in The People vs. Larry Flynt, Rounders, Fight Club, 25th Hour, The Italian Job, The Illusionist, etc. He directed the romantic comedy Keeping the Faith, and his second directorial effort (Motherless Brooklyn) will mark his "official" screenwriting debut. He also produced The Painted Veil, edited Down in the Valley, contributed an amusing cameo to Kingdom of Heaven, and recorded music for Everyone Says I Love You ... and, um, Death to Smoochy.

But I thought Zak Penn was the one who wrote the screenplay for The Incredible Hulk. Penn, the comics expert who is credited on X-Men 2, (ahem) Elektra, X-Men 3, AND the Fantastic Four video game! (How does one receive credit for the game but not the movie??) Could it be that Mr. Norton signed on for the role of Bruce Banner under the arrangement that he could script-fiddle? Heck, maybe Mr. Penn knows all about it, couldn't care less, and is already knee-deep on his Spy Hunter and Avengers projects.

I just found it interesting is all. All I know is that if Norton's writing contributions make for a more entertaining flick, go for it. As I've mentioned only 455 times by now, The Hulk is definitely my favorite Marvel character. And frankly I'm pretty thrilled with the way the new flick is coming together.

We're here, literally crammed like a sardine into some of the first few rows at the Marvel Studios panel, and they've hit the ground running by introducing the talent right away. No fancy speeches or anything.

The Incredible Hulk just started shooting, so we unfortunately won't have any footage or pictures coming your way, but they did manage to bring Liv Tyler and Ed Norton down from the set. Woot! The questions are from the moderator, IGN's Eric Moro.

• So where does The Incredible Hulk fit into the movie mythology? "This is a part one, and it's the beginning of a whole new Hulk saga."
• Why another Hulk movie? "Because he's The Incredible Hulk!" Well, that tells me a lot. "We also won't have a Hulk that is three different sizes."
• Edward, you're contributing more than acting to the film, what else are you doing? "Well, you're making me be immodest ... I came into this and I wrote the screenplay. I was a Marvel kid growing up, and I used to subscribe to a lot of the books. Remember when they used to come in plastic with the little piece of scotch tape on the back? This story has almost limitless potential in it to be remade and redone. It's a really classic modern mythology."
  
• Liv, Betty Ross definitely isn't a damsel in distress ... what's your take on the character? "Well, I haven't started shooting yet, so I'm a bit out of the loop, but I used to love the television show and I'd watch it with my mom. In this film, we're searching for a cure for him."

In the vein of everyone having an opinion, many of which don't agree, The Guardian's film blog has a piece about superheroes -vs- talented actors. The spin -- the actors who are taking on the roles of comic icons are being fooled into doing so: "What seems to be happening is that the actors themselves are being duped into thinking that these are roles of Shakespearean complexity." Is that the case? The piece mentions George Clooney's less-than-loved Batman and Robin and Halle Berry's terrible stint as Catwoman. If either of them took on the roles thinking they were getting a meaty, complex story, they should probably get their heads examined.

The blog goes on to talk about the increase of suffering and torment in superhero roles, and that the ones who are truly successful don't take themselves seriously -- Spider-Man, Wolverine. Wait ... Hugh Jackman? His role isn't the darkest thing out there, but the character definitely has his share of angst. Considering the built-up aversion to dark superheroes, it's no surprise that the piece then goes on to describe Batman Begins as "a po-faced, dark (in every sense) and confusing two hours in the company of a man with the lowest voice and most clenched jaw in Gotham city." Sure, if Spidey had to fall into the depths of despair, that would be strange, but can you fault Batman for being dark? Isn't it supposed to be? It's based on an orphan who wants revenge. That's not light and happy fare, even if the television version made it that way.

What do you think? Are some superheroes failing because the actors are taking the roles too seriously? Did Eric Bana's green, fighting fiend fail because he made it too awkward and real life? Is Batman Begins not half as good as we've all said it is? Does suffering make superheroes smaller?

Well now here's a piece of casting news I can get behind! Nothing against Eric Bana, who I consider to be a fine (if somewhat vanilla-flavored) actor, but if we needed a legitimate reason to get excited for Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk, here it is: Bruce Banner and his massive green alter ego will be played by Oscar nominee Edward Norton! Best known for his superlative work in movies like Primal Fear, Rounders, American History X and Fight Club (oh, and Death to Smoochy), Norton steps into a role vacated by Bana -- and I for one think it's a really excellent choice on the part of Leterrier and his Universal overlords. (Between this decision and the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man, us superhero nerds are being treated to some great casting choices.)

Ever since he was hired to helm the second Hulk flick, Mr. Leterrier (who also directed Unleashed and both Transporter flicks) has been assuring everyone that it's not a full-bore "sequel," but more of a "reboot," as if Ang Lee's original was something less than sequel-worthy. (I've said it before and I'll probably say it again, but I just don't understand why there's so much hate for Lee's rendition of The Hulk.) Those who had their fingers crossed on Leterrier snagging his Transporter star (Jason Statham) for the role of Banner will probably be a bit disappointed here, but c'mon: The idea of seeing the mild-mannered and generally amiable Edward Norton "hulking out" sounds like a whole lot of fun to me. Scheduled for a June 13, 2008 release, The Incredible Hulk still has a lot of casting announcements to go, but I'm of the opinion that they're really starting the "reboot" off on the right foot -- although I certainly wouldn't mind if the producers brought Jennifer Connelly back for a second spin.

It always amazes me how far in advance a studio can plan its release schedule. I understand that really, really big tentpole blockbusters need to reserve certain dates, as Paramount just did with its fourth installment of Indiana Jones. Some weekends, particularly those in the summertime, are very desirable. But considering that most of the films Universal has just penciled in for 2008 haven't even begun shooting yet, it seems a bit silly to think about when to expect to see them in theaters. Nevertheless...

Here the studio's list of announced release dates for 2008:

• March 28: Wanted - Chris first told us about this comic book adaptation, the Hollywood debut of Russian director Timur Bekmambetov starring Morgan Freeman and James McAvoy, back in November. As far as I know, it hasn't begun filming yet.
  
• June 13: The Incredible Hulk - They're still casting for this comic book reboot. So far we only know that Dominic Purcell is not playing the lead. Chris already mentioned this was set for June 27, but Universal has moved it up to avoid competition with Disney/Pixar's Wall-E.
  
• July 11: The Mummy 3 - Jessica just told us that the cast is still negotiating this one. Erik spoke directly to Brendan Fraser, who didn't seem to know exactly what was going on yet. It may begin production this summer.
  
• July 18: Mamma Mia! - Erik gave us the news a month ago that the Broadway hit will be adapted to film. A day later he added that Meryl Streep would star. Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight is also scheduled for this date, so while Mom and Sis are enjoying all the ABBA music, you and Dad can be next door watching Batman.
  
• August 1: Hellboy 2: The Golden Army - We've been hearing about this sequel for years, and for awhile Mark was issuing updates around the clock. Now it looks like Del Toro will begin shooting this Spring.
  
• November 14: The Wolf Man - Now that Scott has pointed out it has a director, another of Universal's monster movie reboots is good to go.
  

Over at the SuperheroHype message boards, new Hulk director Louis Leterrier stopped by to answer a handful of questions from eager Marvel fanboys. In between the "I don't knows" and the "it is too early to tells" were a collection of interesting details. Watch out, here come the bullet points!

• Jason Statham (who appeared in other Louis Leterrier flicks) will play the part of Betty Ross.*
• Leterrier is not concerned about a possibly small-ish (if you consider $180 million small) budget, because he made most of his early flicks for around 20 million or less. To him, $180 million is a fortune, and he promises every penny will be on screen.
• Eric Bana is not officially out of consideration for the lead role.
• Neither is Lou Ferrigno, at least as far as voice work is concerned.
• Leterrier thinks he can top the action from the first flick.
• He also considers himself "a maggot" compared to Ang Lee, and will not try to imitate his style in any way because it would be "an enormous failure."
• Leterrier will surround himself with the very best fight coordinators for this flick.
• Zak Penn's screenplay is phenomenal. If this is true and not hyperbole, it is very good news, as Penn is apparently the next best thing to God in Marvel's eyes. The Dude is writing a ton for them.
• No release date/schedule is in place yet.

*It should be pointed out this was an attempt at humor on Leterrier's part, just in case someone didn't pick up on it.

If you haven't heard the latest news on the Hulk pseudo-sequel rumblings, let me quickly fill you in before we discuss today's news -- otherwise, you'd probably be a bit confused. Hulk, as a movie, disappointed most fans. It might have been an interesting character study, or whatever, but it wasn't what we wanted from a Hulk film. The bad reception made the possibility of a sequel very slim; Marvel now says they are handling the property themselves, and will NOT be making a sequel, but will instead just "try again" with a new Hulk film. A restart, if you will. Since that announcement, rumors have flown fast and furious regarding who will play the new Hulk. The only thing more or less everyone agreed on was that it would not be Erik Bana, star of the recent Hulk flop.

Bana, however, would like to be considered. When asked recently about his thoughts on returning to the franchise (by a scooper over at Superhero Hype), he did not outright deny it, as we all expected he would. Instead, he said it depends on a lot of things, like the script, the timing and whether they want him. He'd like to, and he's looking to talk about "that one real soon." The highlighted emphasis is my own, because I consider it to be the key phrase in this comment. If Marvel wants to clearly break from the first film and start over again, they surely wouldn't use the same actor, right? That'd cause all manner of sequel/not-a-sequel confusion. ...