We’ve been hearing rumors of post-production battles on The Incredible Hulk for months now, so it’s a little strange that The New York Times has decided to be the bearer of additional bad buzz with little in the way of new info. Once again, we learn that Edward Norton and Marvel are at odds over the final cut of the movie, that the late-arriving teaser was heavily viewed but tepidly received, and that, despite all this, Hulk is still the fourth “most anticipated new portrayal” of the summer (finishing just behind New Eddie and the New Cruisers)!
If there’s an interesting new wrinkle in all of this, it’s that Norton is threatening to withdraw from the publicity effort if the final cut isn’t to his liking. This would be problematic, but not insurmountable provided the final theatrical trailer (scheduled to debut in front of Iron Man) delivers some substantial, edifice-shattering, Harlem, Ontario mayhem. Though the fans will turn out regardless, the rank-and-file need convincing that this isn’t a replay of Ang Lee’s Great Santini-ized Hulk, which opened to a respectable $62 million before taking a disastrous 70% tumble in its second weekend of release. They need reassurances that this Hulk is mean, not just pissed off at his pops.
Brook Burnes’s article goes very heavy on the negative: he/she quotes an entertainment analyst who opines that Marvel’s actions indicate that the film is a “bomb”, which is rather dubiously supported by a non-committal comment from Stan Lee (“My prediction is that it will be more popular than the last one”). There’s nothing conclusive in Burnes’s piece (which also sports a glaring factual error about the Hulk talking in the television show), but it is fascinating that Marvel is experiencing such persistent difficulties with one of its most salable properties. It’s not that difficult to make a mainstream Hulk film, if all you want is to make a mainstream Hulk film.
But why hire an intellectual like Norton (and team him with a director of mindless action films, Unleashed included) if that’s all you wanted in the first place?
25 comments
I also thought it was odd that the article describes Abomination as a new villain.
he is a 'new' villain for the movie, lee.
Dogballs.
The last trailer was ass. But I'm going to see this abomination anyway, cuz I'm tarded like that.
Come-on, Norton is a pseudo-intellectual, not an actual one. (and a completely overrated actor at that) I suspect he's upset that all his character development, and channeling of Bill Bixby didn't make the cut. I do give him credit for trying to be more intellectual than he really is though. But hey, this is a comic book movie…lighten up. Finally, kids and dork fans may be into this thing, but the rest of us, we'll wait and see what the word on the street is. I like a genuinely good fantasy film, but like many others, can't be bothered to fork out the dough these days just for the sake of seeing a comic book 'hero' from my childhood incarnate.
PS: $11.00 for coke and popcorn is STUPID!
Technically the creature speaks in Ang Lee's movie as well, albeit in a dream/nightmare/hallucination sequence. He says, "Puny Human." Which the comic Hulk said. Often.
I don't see any Hulk movie ever being a hit because there's not enough substance to the character. Sure, a guy who turns into a raging monster when he gets mad speaks to puberty-addled kids, but doesn't connect with anyone else enough to make big bucks. The TV series worked for a few years primarily because it WAS a TV series, and they could string you along to wonder whether Banner would ever find a cure. And he'd help people along the way. That format doesn't work in a 2-hour story.
The Hulk spoke at the end of Lee's Hulk movie, outside a dream sequence. He says "TAKE IT ALLLLLL!" in a kinda Patrick Wharburtonish growl to his father as he absorbs his power.
While I like Norton and would love to see this movie work, the bitter taste of hearing how bad Lee's version was has me hoping this tanks. His version remains one of the best comic book adaptations ever and the abuse it receives is totally unwarranted.
Agreed. Hulk is the best comic book film of all time.
The Best comic book ADAPTATION ever is Sin City. There is no other comic book movie truer to its source.
Yeah but Sin City sucked.
Jeremy, I think you're being unfairly dismissive of Unleashed. Like many of the films Luc Besson has written, I found the characters incredibly interesting to the point that I'd be insterested to find out what happens to them after the events of the movie. (That doesn't necessarily mean I'd want to see a sequel for Unleashed as I would with Leon: The Professional, La Femme Nikita or The Fifth Element.) Aside from that, I thought it was incredibly pleasant–despite the amount of brutal violence–and enjoyable.
Sin City was a piece of shit. RR should stick to spy kids movies and smoking dope with QT by a Motel six pool in Austin. Lee's Hulk, while a flawed film, is a great comic book movie and is undeserving of the hate heaped upon it. This bullshit "reboot" looks like ass warmed over, and it also looks like Marvel and Co. are more and more likely to dump this one and let it die a quiet death at the box office. Iron Man is their expected cash cow this summer.
Ok,
Edward Norton is not an intellectual. Have you heard him talk about "Down in the Valley?"
He's a gibbering good with a near Ivy League education.
But I think we mean intellectual as in a wordy bastard with bad taste in roles, sure.
Sorry had to vent a bit.
As much as I hate to disagree with Matt M, Unleashed was just plain awful.
Gotta' give it to Ang's Hulk too. It does take waaaay too much abuse. It went a totally different direction than most superhero movies we've seen, to it's credit. But most importantly it was very experimental for a big budget film.
I'm going to have to agree with SwampCow in saying the original Hulk move was fantastic (although the end is weaker than the majority of the flick).
I'll agree with Matt M and say Unleashed was a great action flick. Why was it so good? Because it actually had multiple fights and many action scenes instead of the load of shit that gets passed off as "action" nowadays where it's just a scene at the end with awkward blocking and quick cutting. Oh, and the villains in Unleashed had charisma and character and weren't mysterious European #3213.
I was really, really dubious of this project when I heard Norton was brought on board. I don't know why Marvel is surprised by clashes with him as he has a reputation of being insanely difficult and controlling with the movies he's in.
And that first trailer sucked balls. DON'T EVER release a trailer for a movie like this if the effects aren't finished!
first off i have to say i have the NY piece, there were a lot of half truths in there, as if the writer didn't give two shits about what they were writing about. Is the Campy 70's tv "the incredible hulk" most people image of the hulk? as in the people who would want to see this movie? and is that really why they add "the" and "incredible" to the title, hell maybe it was the first adjective they came up with. i mean i heard they said "the flaming hulk" first with alterations being "the mischevious hulk" and the always popular, "the kid-diddling hulk"…… i mean really people, have some fucking background if you are going to write articles on things like this. Hey next time the head business writer to do a big piece on "Thor"
Jesus exaybach, edit your shit. I know what you're saying, and I still don't know what you're saying.
Comment #5: "I don't see any Hulk movie ever being a hit because there's not enough substance to the character." Really? Are you saying that a film can't be a hit if the main character lacks substance? If Incredible Hulk is a hit, it'd hardly be the first time that such a thing has happened. I can probably think of a few hundred examples, some of which don't even involve Jerry Bruckheimer OR Michael Bay. You must have slept through the 80s or something. Schwarzenegger and Stallone turned into raging monsters (so to speak) all the time, and were often even less intelligible than the Hulk.
I don't get the defenders of Ang Lee's Hulk. I understand that Lee was trying something, but he didn't come close. The movie is a tedious march through scenes that simply miss the mark. It's way too long and takes 50 minutes to get going. The subtext is awkward and doesn't quite fit, repressed memories? how about exploring anger? The Hulk looked bad, the CGI wasn't there. Josh Lucas and Sam Elliott were mustache twirling one dimensional props. One of the big action set pieces was the Hulk fighting Hulk dogs, which ended up being lamer than it sounded. The end battle didn't work. Bana was OK he's done better work elsewhere. As a comic book, it would have been a boring read, as a movie Hulk just doesn't work. I liked the comic panel edits Lee brought and Nolte tried to get things going but there are no thrills to be had with Hulk. I remeber walking out of the theatre looking at my watch and going "what the hell just happened? Then apologizing to my wife and staying in movie picking jail until late August.
What am I missing? Hulk supporters, did you really watch this movie? Help me understand? Then to go beyond merely accepting Hulk to say it's the best comic book movie, have you seen X2, Spiderman 2, Batman Begins or even Blade 2?
It's not that the first Hulk was all bad or all good. A good Hulk movie CAN be done. Hollywood just can't figure it out. The 70's TV series was okay, for a TV series, but it dragged on after a while – "David" Banner goes into town, meets: Single mom with asshole husband, town overrun by evil punks, town overrun by evil mob guys, etc. etc. Banner Hulks out, picks up a car……a foot off the ground, maybe breaks some really hard eggs in his hands….. bad guys get defeated. If someone ever shot that Hulk, he'd immediatly fall down and die. He was never "The Hulk!" he became that way sitting in a machine from a cancer hospital, not a massive, cool looking, nuclear explosion saving Rick Jones' life. In fact, NO characters from the comic book were featured, not even the lead character's first name! Ang Lee's "Hulk" was better, finally introducing most of the cast from the comic book, having a Hulk who was actually strong and monstrous, who could smash through a wall and not have to open the door by the handle!
The CGI on the Hulk was impressive, the pathos was nice, when he was resting after a battle in the desert and was just breathing hard, almost coming to relax, very nice touch. The casting was great all around. But, the whole "evil-dad" plot was too melodramatic and weird for most people, especially the final son-father argument that looked like a theater show on stage. This new one looks like crap, sorry. I hate all the casting. Except, maybe, Tim Roth, and he looked retarded in the second trailer. Once again, no nuclear explosion, he looks like he sits in a machine that REALLY looks like it came from a cancer hospital in that one picture. That has zero dramatic resonance when compared to the cartoon for godsakes! when he gets a full body dose of a massive nuclear explosion in the back that throws him in the ditch. That would be so impressive on the big screen, but alas, it was only on the television screen on Saturday morning in the 80's. This new Hulk looks……absolutely horrific. He and the Abomination look like the guy in "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" who drinks Hyde's angry juice, and gets all fake CGI looking. I'm only seeing this one to maybe see a few things get smashed…if they even have that in there.
PlanB – perhaps a poor choice of words. But Stallone and Arnie, as cardboard as their characters could be at times, were put in situations that resonated with the mass market. (and lets be realistic: the studio need the masses for financial success). Plus don't forget that in The Terminator Arnie was the heavy, and Rambo was the sequel to First Blood, which had emotional depth. People can relate to a guy going after his kidnapped daughter, or rescuing POWs, etc. What is there for people to connect to with the Hulk?
Plus he has no real foil that works in the movies. Batman has his joker, Superman has Luthor, the X-men have Magneto, Spider-man has… you get the idea. The Hulk has no one like that, which hurts any dramatic tension in the movie. Ang Lee tried to address that by making a Greek Tragedy (which looked more like an anime flick at the end). Now they're trying to make people connect by doing Hulk vs. Other Hulk. I just see the audience for that being limited.
exaybach – I think he's right. Hulk may be Marvel's #2 seller, but it's lig years behind Spider-Man, to say nothing of the name recognition of Batman or Superman. The non-comic reading public may recognize the image of the Hulk in general, but their biggest exposure to it is likely to be that TV show. Same thing with Wonder Woman, btw.
"Ang Lee's Great Santini-ized Hulk"-God, I love the Beaks! Also, I'm amazed at how often Ed Norton gets away w. bullying the studios. I mean when was the last time he had a hit? I wish more stars had his balls!
I don't believe for a second that the name recognition for Bats and Supes and Hulk and F4 etc come from the comics – I think the movies are primarily seen by the wider audience as TV Show remakes (Live Action and Cartoon). The 80s Batman was a TV Show remake, not a complimentary piece to the good work going on in comics at the time. The comics angle is only played up to motivate the core fan audience and generate buzz. Quote: "What is there for people to connect to with the Hulk?" –> Road Rage, Check Out Rage, Sports Rage –> people have a lot of rage issues and would love to be able to blow up and smash shit up, but they're also for the most part social animals that realise that's a bad thing for them to do so it's important to be able to control it – so you have a nice tension between warring human desires (to tear shit up and belong to a community) "Plus he has no real foil that works in the movies." True – Movie Hulk is too big, too dumb and too indestructible, so he can only really go into battle with other similar monsters or innocent soldiers (note the lengths HULK went to showing that he never killed anybody – it rivaled the A-Team for post-action headcounts). Re: Norton's Intellectualism — by Hollywood standards he's Intellectual. Him trying to explain the symbolic importance of smashing up a new model VW Beetle to Pitt in the Fight Club commentary is priceless. It's no wonder he thinks he's working with idiots.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.