The Incredible Hulk (Louis Leterrier, 2008)

[Antoine Doinel]

Norton to star in 'Hulk' Marvel movie to be released in 2008

By MICHAEL FLEMING

Variety

Edward Norton has been set by Marvel Studios to play Bruce Banner in "The Incredible Hulk." The Louis Leterrier-directed drama will be distributed by Universal Pictures, with an opening set for June 13, 2008.

It is a decided return to the mainstream for Norton, who recently has starred in such indies as "Down in the Valley," "The Painted Veil," and "The Illusionist." Pic will shoot this summer in Toronto.

Norton takes over a role played in the Ang Lee-directed "Hulk" by Eric Bana. Though that film opened strongly, it didn't fare as well as other Marvel efforts, including "Spider-Man," "X-Men," "Fantastic Four" and, most recently, "Ghost Rider."

Marvel Studios, which has a $525 million credit facility obtained through Merrill Lynch, made "The Incredible Hulk" its second film under that arrangement, and seeks to make a sequel that is less self-serious and more in line with the comic series and TV show. Leterrier directed the action-filled "Transporter 2," and "Unleashed."

The new pic begins with Banner on the run, trying to avoid capture long enough to cure the condition that turns him into a misunderstood green menace.

"Edward Norton is a rare talent and one of the most versatile actors in the business," Marvel Studios production president Kevin Feige said in a statement. "His ability to transform into a particular role makes him the ideal choice to take on the character of Bruce Banner and the Hulk. Edward is perfectly suited to bring one of the most popular and important Marvel icons to the bigscreen in a new and exciting way."

The script for "The Incredible Hulk" was written by Zak Penn, who had a hand in crafting two "X-Men" films, "Fantastic Four" and "Elektra" for Marvel.

"The Incredible Hulk" is being produced by Avi Arad, Gale Anne Hurd and Marvel's Feige. Jim Van Wyck, David Maisel, Ari Arad and Stan Lee are exec producing.

Norton, who will next be seen starring with Colin Farrell in the Gavin O'Connor-directed New Line drama "Pride and Glory," is repped by Endeavor.

[ranaing83]

I am willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt, greatly due to Norton's involvement. He is an actor who I can watch in almost anything, and from listening to him speak about his craft, I don't think he's the type to phone in a performance, even if he is doing it for money. Also, I have to admit, I didn't hate Ang Lee's previous take on this character.

[Cinesimilitude]

"seeks to make a sequel that is less self-serious and more in line with the comic series and TV show."

That bothers me. Ang Lee's Hulk is my favorite comic book movie because it had such a great amount of character depth, and it didn't feel like just a bunch of introductions. I was really hoping Bana would continue with the role.

[Antoine Doinel]

I am totally looking forward this. I actually wish Leterrier had brought with him the Luc Besson production team that helped make the Transporter and Danny The Dog. Not because they are great films, but that the action sequences at least, rely less on CGI and more on physical, hand-to-hand combat. Despite that I'm buoyed that Zak Penn has written the screenplay and that this has the potential to be a much grittier film.

Of course, the casting of Edward Norton is a big surprise. I can't to see him turn green.

[CSM126]

I love HULK and all, but we don't need a sequel. Especially not one not directed by Ang Lee and without Eric Bana playing Banner. This whole idea has "bad" written all over it. I especially don't like seeing the word "mainstream" in the article. It was a Hollywood product, but HULK was decidedly not mainstream in style. And that was good.

[Joe Buck]

I'm not looking forward to this, but I do take some solace in the idea that this new film couldn't be any worse than the last one. It was done all wrong, and CGI Hulk sucked. They have to come up with something else. It doens't work with me. I don't like it.

They should make him the Grey Hulk this time and have him hang out in Vegas as Mr. Fixit. Grey Hulk was a tad smaller than Green Hulk, so you could just find some big sombitch and beef him up with foam rubber or something. Make it dark and sleazy.

[a.khan]

Despite that I'm buoyed that Zak Penn has written the screenplay and that this has the potential to be a much grittier film.

You know, I love Zak Penn too ("Incident at Loch Ness" is a masterful blend of staged comedy and psuedo-documentary), but I was extremely saddened by his work in "X-Men 3," easily one of the worst pictures from last year.

Though I will concede him a point because another writer was involved, and windmaster Avi Arad was hovering over the production set like Mephistopheles. "Hulk" is another superhero summer blockbuster type. And Avi Arad is, once again, in charge.

[ranaing83]

From what I've read about this film, I get the sense that the filmmakers aren't treating it as a sequel as much as a "reboot" of the franchise. It seems that "rebooting" franchises is the "in" thing to be doing these days.

[ranaing83]

The new Hulk is going to be grey according to this, from Avi Arad:

[quote]“None, no. It's a new Hulk, new direction, new size, new color, new attitude. Anything that was done before is not in this movie. It's a very different kind of Hulk. It's more of a love story, it's more of a heroic Hulk. It's a kind of Hulk we loved in the show, so it's kind of more influenced by the show than anything else. It's very human, very touching, and huge action.â€

[flyonthewall2983]

A gray Hulk? I can almost see the tagline, "you wouldn't like me when I'm bland".

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Liv Tyler is Betty Ross
Date: May 4, 2007

By: Kellvin Chavez
Source: Th Hollywood Reporter

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Liv Tyler will star opposite Ed Norton in Marvel Studios' "The Incredible Hulk," signing on to play Betty Ross, the longtime love interest of Dr. Bruce Banner/the Hulk. Louis Leterrier is directing the movie, which is being produced by Avi Arad, Gale Anne Hurd and Kevin Feige.

Ross, a classic "Hulk" character from the comic book's beginning in 1962, is Banner's fellow scientist and an ally in his quest to rid him of his lurking monster deep inside. The movie will unfold with Ross estranged from Banner (Norton), but with the pursuit of the Hulk heating up and Banner on the run trying to cure his condition, Ross finds herself swept back into his life.

Jennifer Connelly played the character in the 2003 movie "Hulk," directed by Ang Lee.

Filming on the new "Hulk" is slated to begin in the summer in Toronto.

[Joe Buck]

They should make him the Grey Hulk this time and have him hang out in Vegas as Mr. Fixit. Grey Hulk was a tad smaller than Green Hulk, so you could just find some big sombitch and beef him up with foam rubber or something. Make it dark and sleazy.

Well, hot damn. "Love story"? Pah! Sounds like my wish won't come true. Gray Hulk has more depth as a character and would play better on the big screen that Green "Me Smash" Hulk.

Put him in a casino with hookers and thugs. It should be more like: Martin Scorcese's "Hulk". Joe Pesci can be his sidekick assistant.

[Antoine Doinel]

Tim Roth has signed on to play the villain, Abomination.

[Joe Buck]

The Abomination, eh? Interesting.....

[Polybius]

[...] seeks to make a sequel that is less self-serious and more in line with the comic series and TV show.

Whoever wrote that is (unsurprisingly) profoundly ignorant of the title's history.

That show's handling of the Hulk character was exceptionally lame (although the largely unrelated Banner stories were usually at least okay, in a Fugitive homage kind of way) and the tone and tenor of that comic, especially in the 90's when Peter David wrote it, is a lot closer to Lee's (very underrated) film.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

The Abomination, eh? Interesting.....

Could be... Altho, Roth is gonna have to bulk up big time if he's gonna look like Abomination does in the comic books...

[Polybius]

Maybe just Tim's voice, like Fishburne doing The Silver Surfer's voice in the upcoming FF sequel.

I'd love to hear him do the "The Whole World Is Sick" monologue from Don't Come Knocking or maybe the "Cops In The Bathroom Amusing Anecdote" from Reservoir Dogs as The Abomination.

[Antoine Doinel]

Here's the synopsis.

[Harold Gervais]

Speaking as someone who really enjoyed Ang Lee's take on the Hulk...up until the last 10 minutes or so when it went all bat-shit crazy on us, I'm not that opposed to a restart. For as beautiful & sad a movie as Lee's Hulk was, it isn't what most people walked in to see. People think Hulk and they think SMASH! Granted that doesn't do complete justice to what writers like Bill Manto & Peter David have done with the character over the years but for an introduction to the character it is what a lot of fans are walking in hoping to see. That someone like Ed Norton is involved says to me the movie will be more than just Hulk smashing his way through stuff, that hopefully there will be complexity to go along with a greater level of gamma powered smash & destruction antics.

[DrewReiber]

Speaking as someone who really enjoyed Ang Lee's take on the Hulk...up until the last 10 minutes or so when it went all bat-shit crazy on us, I'm not that opposed to a restart. For as beautiful & sad a movie as Lee's Hulk was, it isn't what most people walked in to see. People think Hulk and they think SMASH! Granted that doesn't do complete justice to what writers like Bill Manto & Peter David have done with the character over the years but for an introduction to the character it is what a lot of fans are walking in hoping to see.

If that's the argument you have to make to convince yourself that everyone else is wrong about Ang Lee's Hulk, then enjoy it. I've read Peter David's Hulk, I've studied and worked in the field of comics... and you know what? I think Hulk is TERRIBLE. Ang Lee not only failed to interpret David's emotional and psychological themes in any coherent or honest manner, he completely betrayed the core of the series and the very nature of illustrated comics as a medium. Hell, it's even an affront to good filmmaking, unless you really think films that feature flashbacks within flashbacks, incomprehensible CG and double endings sequences are signs of complex storytelling.

When I saw Hulk, I saw a film struggling between a filmmaker who had zero interest in the written comic and a host of producers trying to make it look like the story people paid to see. Even more unsettling was that Ang Lee lacked even the most basic understanding of comics formal panel techniques, resulting in that hilariously obsessive misuse of framing. Of course, that was only one of a number of failures in respecting anything from the title he was supposedly adapting. Rather than stick with the David material as some of you put it, he just channeled some superficial elements (the psyche, his father, etc.) through his own familiarity with movies, resulting in a pointless cacophony of King Kong and Frankenstein themes that contradicted some of the most recognizable aspects of the character.

Looking into the history of the production, I found out Ang Lee knew nothing about the comic, leaving Avi Arad and David Hayter working to the last minute to add anything that would help the film resemble the title. Banner's accident was no longer the cause of his affliction, but a random green light that set off an inevitable mutant transformation that denied Banner any responsibility or choice in the matter. The *only* reason he saved that boy in the lab scene, as per the heroic moment that ended in tragedy in the comic, was because Arad remembered it wasn't there and convinced Ang Lee that fans would be upset. It was thrown together on the spot, literally, while the shot was being set up. This is apparently how much of the filming went, which would explain a lot about why the film went so over schedule.

Even Peter David talked about the ugly development of the film, arguing that fans should be pleased it wasn't worse. He recalled a draft prior to David Hayter's involvement where Hulk would tear the tops off of cars and drive around town to get to the next scenes. The only reason this wasn't in the script was because guys like Hayter would tell Lee and his writer/producer that Hulk has an ability to leap large distances and they would say, "Oh, good. We didn't know that. We can use that instead."

The only people I've met in life who like Hulk are those who need to convince themselves that something more intelligent than "your average superhero movie" is going on, so they can pat themselves on the back for being better than those who respect the genre and applaud the attempts that actually respect and payoff the concepts. It's only on this board that I found someone who is actually convinced that the comic material ended up onscreen. I don't even have the words to explain how truly baffling I find these statements to be. Where was the comic in that film? Was it Banner the lab baby mutant? Was it Absorbing Man Banner Dad and his Super Poodles? No, no... it must be the choice to literally transform the Hulk into something closer to one of those more easily recognizable and accessible monsters attacking the city concepts.

Hulk is just another embarrassingly misconceived attempt by one of those directors who has no interest in the genre and just wants to be smarter than the material. It's no different than Michel Gondry arguing about how much more interesting and intelligent Richard Lester's Superman III was, because superhero films are sooooo boring. Well, behold everyone, regardless of the clearly action-hungry, dumb audience members like me... we'll always have the Marvel equivalent of Superman III. Let's enjoy it, because obviously I'm going to be pleased as hell that instead of Ang Lee's triumph in experimentation, I'm going to get a great action film from the master director of The Transporter 2. Hooray for everyone getting what they want! Hooray!

[Harold Gervais]

If that's the argument you have to make to convince yourself that everyone else is wrong about Ang Lee's Hulk, then enjoy it.

Drew...I don't feel the need to convince myself of anything. I know what I like and why. It isn't about who is right and who is wrong. I certainly don't feel the need to try and destroy someone else with an opposing opinion as you do. I stand by what I wrote. I think Ang's Hulk is a beautiful movie. It certainly isn't the Hulk I read in the comics for a lot of years and that is okay as well. What I do think and what I was trying to get at was I understand how Ang Lee's take wasn't what most people were expecting and with the majority of the people, what they wanted. That is okay as well. Marvel wants to restart The Hulk as film franchise and in doing that they are going to have to give people a little more of what they expect. I've no desire to sit through a mindless barrage of destruction with nothing behind that...with Edward Nortan I have hopes that there will be some complexity behind the mayhem. Like I said I certainly respect the hatred you feel towards Lee's movie, as it is the general feeling I get from people but I'm not trying to convince you that you are wrong. I respect that you don't like it and I would hope you respect the fact that I do.

[Jeff]

If that's the argument you have to make...I've studied and worked in the field of comics...Hulk is TERRIBLE...Ang Lee knew nothing about the comic...Hooray!

I've yet to see Ang Lee's Hulk, but for me, any film should succeed or fail on its own merits regardless of the source material. It should not matter whether or not Ang Lee or the viewer read or like comic books. Either the screenwriter and the director craft a good film or they do not. I'm also not convinced that superhero pictures need to follow a certain formula or "comic book mentality" in order to be artistically successful (financial success is another story).

[Jun-Dai]

If that's the argument you have to make...I've studied and worked in the field of comics...Hulk is TERRIBLE...Ang Lee knew nothing about the comic...Hooray!

That's the most awesome summary of another post I've seen on this forum.

As far as I'm concerned, the less Lee knew or cared about the comic, the better. Not that I loved the film, but by seeking to create a story and character of its own, I felt that the film came off much better than any of the other Marvel efforts I've seen. There's nothing I like less than to watch an otherwise seemingly talented filmmaker kowtow to original source material, e.g., The Lord of the Rings. Based on DrewReiber's description of the making of the film, it sounds like the film could have been much more interesting had Ang Lee had more freedom from the influence of the comic and its creators.

As for Ang Lee's understanding of the comic book form. . . wtf? How does that relate to the filmmaking at all? The film wasn't about comic books. Related to that point, I really enjoyed Ang Lee's use of wipes and frames to add to some of the kinetic energy of the film (although in typical Hollywood style he scaled back from that technique big-time once the story had really set in).

The only people I've met in life who like Hulk are those who need to convince themselves that something more intelligent than "your average superhero movie" is going on, so they can pat themselves on the back for being better than those who respect the genre and applaud the attempts that actually respect and payoff the concepts.

Yeah, once you start putting people into boxes like that and make it very clear that you're not even interested in looking into the box, you've sort of lost your chance at having much credibility to anyone that doesn't see things the same way. Adding contempt to that pushes you away further.

That said, I don't think there was really anything more "intelligent" than in any of the other Marvel-based films, per se. But there was an attempt to break away somewhat from the others. Personally I felt the film's rather heavy-handed push for more character depth repelled me rather than attracted me, particularly since I wasn't too taken by the acting.

The original comics that these films are based on strike me as an earnest attempt to create something interesting, entertaining, and to explore various ideas about morality, humanity, technology and occasionally narrative form. Every film adaptation I've seen outside of the Hulk seems to be an earnest attempt to milk the comic books and modern special effects for all they're worth to create a sensational box office hit. I found nothing interesting, new, or notable in any of them, with something of an exception in the first X-Men film.

As for this new film, we'll see what comes of it, but I'd be surprised if it amounts to much.

[Antoine Doinel]

William Hurt has joined the cast.

[Antoine Doinel]

Edward Norton announced at ComicCon that he rewrote some (all?) of Zak Penn's script.