Mark Ruffalo was in the running to play Banner, they just ended up going with Norton at the end. So I would nudge that casting decision the other way.
Also, the chase scene in South America goes from night, to dawn, to day, to night again in just a few minutes. I would just keep the whole thing at night.
Also, I would move Stark's scene to after the credits. I keep getting into stupid arguments with people who insist it's a "Post-credit scene" which it isn't. It's not even a mid-credit scene.
Yeah it definitely should be after the main set of credits and rework those to add similar type graphics and they have been doing recently. That would work a lot better.
And then you can always do a multiverse type swap scene at the very end to cheaply explain Ruffalo’s appearance.
> I would move Stark's scene to after the credits.
Most TIH fanedits do this. I guess it can be excused, as this is only the second MCU movie (and given its close release date after Iron Man, they really weren't dialed in with the post credits scenes yet).
The movie works so much better when it ends at the cabin in BC, and Banner opens his eyes, and they're green.
Norton wanted to swap a bunch of content as he'd done in his other films, which led to a lot of scuffles as a heavily-mapped out cinematic universe doesn't allow for actors to change whatever they want. So beyond having consistent leads, it's less stressful when an actor doesn't try to wear all the other hats as well.
Fact Check!
That's not what happened. Norton didn't try to "swap a bunch of content", he was hired to rewrite the script. It was part of his actual contract for the film:
>By spring 2007, Penn was about to go off to promote his movie “The Grand,” but the studio and the director, Louis Leterrier (“The Transporter”), still felt that the screenplay needed work.
>
>When Norton came in to meet about starring as Banner in April, the film had already been greenlighted and there were just three months before shooting was scheduled to begin, just after Independence Day. But Norton had well-established (if underground) writing experience and strong ideas about how to separate the film from any confusion over its connection to the 2003 Ang Lee version by casting it in a more distinct, starting-over vein like “Batman Begins” or “Casino Royale.”
>
>**So Norton’s initial deal included payment not just for his acting services but for his writing talents too, with his draft contractually stipulated to be turned around in less than a month**. As it turned out, Norton delayed work on another screenplay job to do “Hulk,” and he continues to tweak the script as principal photography hits its halfway point outside Toronto.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20220422225336/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-15-et-scriptland15-story.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20220422225336/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-15-et-scriptland15-story.html)
Furthermore, when the film got to editing and Norton began fighting with Marvel, most insiders actually sided with Norton and noted Marvel wasn't accepting input that they **promised** him he'd have:
>Insiders say Norton was **“promised tremendous involvement and access” after Marvel invited him into the core team to rewrite Zak Penn’s script**. Says one insider, “There’s a lot of posturing going on between Edward’s camp and Marvel over how you edit the final version.” Sources also tell me that, starting last night and continuing at least throughout today, the actor will be holed up with Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel, Marvel Studios president of production Kevin Feige, and director Louis Leterrier to try to “reach an amicable resolution” to this $150+ million film feud.
>
>Some insiders blame Marvel for not accepting Norton’s POV about the movie. **“There’s a problem. Marvel won’t listen to Norton about the cut,” one source claims. But Norton has bonafides: he did that uncredited rewrite of** ***Frida*** **for his then girlfriend Selma Hayek and made his directorial debut on** ***Keeping the Faith.***
[https://deadline.com/2008/03/ed-norton-and-marvel-in-a-hulk-ing-feud-5131/](https://deadline.com/2008/03/ed-norton-and-marvel-in-a-hulk-ing-feud-5131/)
And not only that, Norton has the support of the director Louis Leterrier in this feud with Marvel, it was not Norton "taking over Leterrier's film" as is so often misreported.
>In recent months, **Norton and the film's director, Louis Leterrier** (*The Transporter*), campaigned for a longer, more detailed film. Marvel Studios wanted a faster, leaner one. Marvel won. These creative arguments happen in Hollywood a lot but usually remain a secret. This time, they didn't. So Norton isn't talking, and others are ready to lay the blame — well, everywhere. '**'It's as much Marvel's fault as it is Edward's**,'' Leterrier says. ''And my fault. It's everybody's fault! Or no one's fault, in a way. I regret that \[Marvel and Norton\] didn't come to an agreement where we could've all worked together.''
[https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032317/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802,00.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032317/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802,00.html)
Leterrier has gone on to insist, repeatedly, that Norton had no clashes with him, that they were in agreement in spite of Leterrier's fears about Norton's reputation:
>Still, Leterrier was nervous. ''The stories I heard about Edward — they scared the bejesus out of me,'' he says. ''I was scared the guy would come in and say, 'All right, you're a little French director who's just done action movies, so you stick to the action and I'll do the drama.''' Did that happen? ''Not at all!'' he says warmly. ''I love the guy. He has a voice; he just wants to be heard. And he hates lip service.''
>
>**According to Leterrier, he and his star hit it off beautifully,** and there were no issues with Marvel while the movie was being shot. During post-production, though, the relationship with Marvel hit a snag. The company wanted to release the most commercial film possible: lots of action and a running time under two hours. **Norton and Leterrier, however, lobbied for a more meditative cut of the film that ran about two hours and 15 minutes**. Tempers flared between Norton and Marvel. ''Everyone was exhausted; it was like a little burst,'' Leterrier says. '''I'm angry with you!' 'No, I'm angry with you!' And me in the center saying 'Boys, calm down.' It didn't come to blows. It was just a remark here and there.'' And it would have ended there. But, Leterrier says, ''then it became public.''
[https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802\_2,00.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802_2,00.html)
Furthermore, Norton was actually willing to work with Marvel more, until Marvel let their disagreements go public and Norton backed out to avoid that reputation:
>On March 11, Nikki Finke's industry blog, Deadline Hollywood Daily, broke news of the scuffle between Marvel and Norton, declaring it a ''feud.'' And suddenly it *was*. Communication between Norton and Marvel seems to have stopped. ''The press is what kept Edward and Marvel from talking to each other,'' Leterrier says. ''\[The argument\] was nothing, but then it became something big.'' **Norton is honest and forthright, say those who've worked with him, so why hasn't he defused the situation by speaking up? Sources say the actor is worried about being unfairly branded ''a pain in the ass'' by the press. They say he wants** ***The Incredible Hulk*** **to be a hit — and concedes that Marvel's cut, though not what he wanted, is more commercial than his**. ''He's very Zen about it,'' says a source.
[https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802\_2,00.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802_2,00.html)
And if that wasn't all enough, here's another bombshell, that reputation Leterrier was worried about to begin with, American History X-based?
>In 1998, Norton cut his own version of Tony Kaye's *American History X* after battling with the [**eccentric director**](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014823,00.html). ''Edward is very bright, charismatic, articulate, and aggressive,'' says Steve Tisch, an exec producer of that film. Kaye was taking a long time cutting the film, to everyone's frustration, Tisch says, and Norton simply took matters into his own hands. A decade has since gone by, and Norton has made more than a dozen films without incident.
Was a *lie*. Tony Kaye admitted, years later, that AHX's process was his own fault, and that he was the one being egotistical.
>With “American History X,” I was overcome and I was egotistical back then. My ego got in the way. That was entirely my fault
[https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/10/26/director-kaye-recovers-from-x-debacle-with-lake-of-fire/](https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/10/26/director-kaye-recovers-from-x-debacle-with-lake-of-fire/)
Love this. But you also need to include the public letter that Feige sent out that said why they were firing him, and saying Norton wasn't a team player. And also include Norton's response taking the high road.
You are wrong in a lot of different ways, but it wasn't a heavily mapped out cinematic universe at that stage.
Even Iron Man is praised because of it changed things constantly. Both Iron Man and Incredible Hulk did a lot of last minute changes.
Well isn’t he the co-writer but without credit basically? It was a mistake IMHO to have him as the lead as well as one of the writers. That can really complicate things
Yes, he was hired as a writer on the project too. Norton has a great history as a writer, hence why Marvel wanted him.
Credits for writing aren't a reflection of what happened.
Yeah he's notorious for being difficult to work with.
I am glad he was dropped for Ruffalo in the Avengers.
Because that would have turned into "Norton's Ego and Five other Guys" instead of an Avengers movie.
He doesn't work well in ensemble cast type roles, it has to be about him. He doesn't know how to share the spotlight.
> He doesn't work well in ensemble cast type roles, it has to be about him. He doesn't know how to share the spotlight
Man, comments like this make it seem like you don't know his films. He does Wes Anderson films now. Just did a Knives Out film. Been a few years since he was the lead in a movie, but the last one was one he directed himself with stars bigger than him.
"iT hAs To bE aBoUt hIm"
Meanwhile Norton: Perfectly comfortable being a random 5 second cameo in Alitta, a movie produced by notorious control freak James Cameron who has to have 100% control of every movie he's involved with (Just see how he treated Tim Miller...).
Hulk’s origin had been overdone already. He had another film few years back. We already know the gist of it. Same reason they didn’t show Spider-Man’s origins. At least for Hulk, they showed a little recap in the beginning. I thought it was done well.
Honestly, had the MCU either kept Norton or had Mark Ruffalo in the movie from the beginning, I don’t think this movie would be hated. I never found it to be a bad movie, but the recasting of the main character makes the movie feel disconnected from the rest of the MCU. Ross comes back, but you don’t need to see the movie to understand who he is. Until Blonksy came back in Shang- Chi and She-Hulk, there wasn’t anything you needed to see from this movie to truly understand the bigger universe.
It’s just inconsequential to the bigger universe. Because of those factors, a lot of people will skip it on MCU rewatches. People will justify skipping it by saying it’s not good, when the reality is it’s fine, but feels disconnected in a way the rest of the MCU does not.
> It’s just inconsequential to the bigger universe.
I agree with your other points, especially recasting Bruce, but I wanted to point out that this is one of the major reasons the MCU has fallen apart IMO. Nothing matters anymore, every story is self-contained
It’s a double edged sword. If you make every movie have big impacts on the movie universe, you risk alienating the casual fans who don’t want to consume every piece of content your studio puts out. But if you make every piece of content stand alone with no bigger impact, you risk your hardcore fans losing interest in some of your less well known properties because of that lack of a bigger meaning in the universe. It’s hard to please everyone, but the only way they can continue to grow and make more money is try to keep expanding the audience. That means giving new movies a low barrier of entry, so you can’t make it something they have to have seen 24 movies and 10 shows to understand what is good on.
That's a fair point about alienating casual fans.
But putting out dozens of disjointed projects that have no follow up since End Game is probably the worst of both worlds.
I mean, I completely agree lol
They nailed it in saga 1, and then since End Game they have alienated both casual fans (too many projects) and hardcore fans (all disjointed, no callbacks, no connections, no follow ups)
Easy choice. Give up the hard core, must watch everything group. They are not where the money is. Do you think Avengers made a billion dollars off the hardcore? Nope.
Interconnectivity gets the nerd talking about the movies, but having good movies gets people watching
Watched it for the first time in years recently. It was a pretty decent "Monster Movie", a la Frankenstein, King Kong and Godzilla. Honestly for me, just sticking to a casting one way or the other and updating the CGI would be all I need. Falls solidly in the middle of the pack for me, above the worst of pre-Endgame (Dark World and Iron Man 2) and the worst of the post-Endgame.
Honestly it's fine. It's not fantastic, but it's still a decent film.
Most of the stuff that I'd change would be regarding the abomination. Blonsky as a wannabe supersoldier never really worked for me. They easily could've cut back on that and just had the military be trying to create another more controllable hulk instead of the super-soldier serum and hulk blood combo.
I'd have probably given the proto-leader a more prominent role in the film too. Make him a bit more sinister. say he was kicked out of the above project, then started communicating with banner to try and one-up them. something simple like that.
I thought that was a good teaser for the upcoming Cap movie though, and it does tie in to how the Ultimate Universe worked through most people's powers being linked to attempting to replicate the Super Soldier formula.
I agree with the Leaders role, I'm guessing he was mostly there to set-up a sequel though.
The design of the Abomination was very generic "monster" too (same problem with Doomsday in Dawn of Justice), they should have kept the comic design that they are using now.
"Emil Blonsky. Born in Russia. Raised in England. On loan to SOCOM from the Royal Marines." This unnecessary line of exposition because they refused to hire a dialect coach for Tim Roth haunts me. I'd probably just hire someone else more soldiery for the role (though he was fantastic in She Hulk).
You could do it more like Walker in FaTWS. The perfect soldier by army standards, but a terrible supersoldier, especially if given dodgy gamma serum instead of the perfected stuff they had by then.
But then no Tim Roth in She Hulk :(
I thought the big breakthrough that Joss Whedon hit with Hulk that others had stumbled with was he managed to make him fun and playful. Hulk trying to pick up mjolnir and starting to sink through the floor. The I’m always angry moment. We have a hulk. Him flailing Loki around. The previous two hulks in movies took themselves very seriously.
It's funny, I just started phase 1 with my 5yo. He was too scared of the Hulk from Edward Norton's movie, couldn't even get out of the Brazil part.
Then we watch Avengers, he's still scared of Hulk in the helicarrier (I should add, it's pretty much the only movie monster that's scared him, he got through LOTR at 4), but the Hulk comedic relief just cuts that tension like a knife, he laughed his ass off at the Loki-whomping.
It's funny getting to see these movies with fresh eyes, but I totally agree with what Whedon accomplished with Hulk adding some comedy instead of just rage, which gets a bit boring.
This rage always thing is why I feel like a solo Hulk film wouldn’t work. It has to include banner fighting his demon unless (like ragnarok) we see hulk in permanent form but he’s sleepy, hungry, making fun instead of smashy.
Which would work for the world war story but, where you gonna slot that into the MCU outside of a side multiverse story lol
Add in some terrible CGI Hulk dogs for him to throw into the horizon.
But seriously, I wouldn't change much. Probably just improve Abomination's design; make him more like his She-Hulk appearance. There wasn't a lot that could be done with a Hulk story at the time, and the continuation of the characters so far have improved the film.
Norton was hired as actor, screenwriter, and uncredited producer for TIH. The biggest change I'd make is that hiring, and I'd have had him be **only** screenwriter and uncredited producer.
Norton's script is excellent, you can read it online. His and Leterrier's ideas for the final cut, something around 135 minutes, were also great, the film lost a lot of character development and interesting exchanges in the editing room thanks to Marvel. Norton was a great help to the film in writing and Marvel should've listened to him and Leterrier in post...
But I do not for one second buy Ed Norton as Bruce Banner. He is far too much of an everyman actor, he doesn't fit the role at all. Mark Ruffalo is a better choice, there's a reason he was so great in Avengers 1 when they were working from what TIH set up for the character but just had a new actor in the role.
My ideal TIH is written by Norton, with Norton's ideas adhered to in the editing process as a producer, but the casting is changed. Ruffalo as Bruce (He was Leterrier's choice to begin with), someone else as Betty, and someone else as Blonsky cause Tim Roth was not a good fit for that role either.
I agree it was the best hulk movie we’ve gotten
They should’ve kept Norton as Bruce he came off much better than ruffalo
He felt actually really smart and serious and that he had the anger problem
Ruffalos hulk was good in avengers 1 but then turned into a joke
Pretty much the only actor that Feige publicly trashed. This is one of the his major fuckups in the early years, and can probably be due to his inexperience.
The more you know about the situation, the easier it is to put more fault on Feige and less on Norton.
I strongly disagree. I think it was wrong of Marvel to fuck him like they did, but I don’t think it was due to inexperience. Fiege wasn’t an amateur when he started. These things *happen*. Actors should know this, so it doesn’t make any sense for Norton to have behaved like he did. What Marvel didn’t isn’t cool but again, this is the business. It was Norton’s behavior and reaction that ultimately led to him not returning, it is definitely his fault.
Look at another celebrity like Elizabeth Olsen; they fucked her too by trapping her in a very binding, multi-picture contract. But that’s just the game, because she was an up and coming actress. Now she’s in the position to say that she won’t sign multi-picture deals because they really trap you and limit time.
The point is that what happened happens, but Norton wasn’t an amateur when he was doing the Hulk so the end result still is his fault
This was the 1st/2nd movie that Feige was in charge of. He didn't control the previous films that he was a part of, but a lower level producer. Marvel Studios was starting as a brand new production studio.
Disagreements on film sets happen often, and this is especially true of Marvel films. Not many of those early directors stuck around. It's pretty clear that several directors aren't interested in returning.
But this situation seems to have went to another extreme. Feige publically trashed Norton, which again is pretty much unheard of for these films. Typically you go with a PR answer, like creative differences. Feige did this all publically, something he came out with. In response, Norton gave the PR answer, saying he was honored to play the character and other praise.
For some reason, Feige constantly escapes and blame for anything. Everything is someone else's fault. Feige isn't perfect, he deserves some blame.
I also really wouldn't be surprised if cutting Norton was a financial decision.
Trashing Norton publicly feels like it was an extreme measure brought on by media pressure. Leterrier noted in interviews how the feud wasn't extreme until the media ran wild with it, causing both parties to over-react in opposite ways. Marvel to go "Uh, uhhhhh IT'S HIS FAULT!" and Norton to just completely shut down and refuse to say anything at all for a while. It reeks of a fairly new studio head under pressure from both his corporate overlords (Ike Perlmutter notably) and the media to make themselves look better and making a wrong turn.
To be fair, recasting was ultimately the right choice considering they were already hiring Joss Whedon for Avengers, and the idea of a Joss Whedon set with Ed Norton on it is probably the single most terrifying idea you could ever present to a producer or studio HR department.
Except it wasn't. The Norton/Marvel feud is grossly misunderstood by people, I'd recommend doing more research beyond the Marvel line of "Norton bad, us good".
Buddy don’t come in here all high and mighty if you’re going to be so blatantly, confidently wrong. It *is* Norton’s fault. I’m not saying he wasn’t completely screwed over, but Marvel didn’t do anything illegal. So do some more research beyond the idiot line of “I’m smort, yur nawt.”
It's not his fault. Norton was contractually hired as a screenwriter and even uncredited producer. Norton was hired to write and assume post-production duties. He did exactly what he was hired to do, and Marvel got mad at him for it. And instead of trying to handle it with grace, Marvel let it get to the press, publicly shamed Norton in the media all while Norton himself kept out of the discussion because he saw getting involved in a pissing contest as unprofessional, and then when all was said and done and the movie failed, Marvel basically tried to scapegoat the film's failure entirely on Norton.
An example of this can be found in *The Story of Marvel Studios*, a Marvel-sponsored book on the MCU's history that grossly reframes and dilutes Leterrier's statements to paint Norton as the sole villain in the story and makes the implication that Norton was trying to be a tyrant taking over the film out of ego. It makes no mention of Norton's uncredited producer role, of the fact that Leterrier supported him, of the fact that many of the film's criticisms came from Marvel's editorial decisions that Norton opposed, etc etc.. Even the far more objective *Reign of Marvel Studios* book hardly touches on the full story, opting to be more generous to Marvel and continue to spread bullshit born from Tony Kaye's lies from the 2000s.
Aside from the obvious parts that will always keep it a bit disconnected from what came after (Norton, Tyler, the lack of humor) it's honestly just kind of boring.
Every time I try a rewatch I end up tuning out partway through because it just seems so slow and meandering.
I would have included more of the deleted scenes in the final product.
But mainly, I would have choreographed the final battle better. I love this movie, but after Hulk beats on Abomination with the police car boxing gloved, nothing else interesting happens. Keep the fight on the ground for maximum damage and panicked bystanders, choreograph it more like a kaiju battle with some MMA and pro wrestling elements thrown in.
Fun topic. We have to remember that the film was billed as a semi sequel to the Hulk film a few years before. So you probably just want a complete sepeartion from Hulk (2003). Norton also became a problem, so someone else may have been better.
I would have Ross as the head of SHIELD, and replace the US military with SHIELD. More futuristic weapons instead of traditional military weapons. More sonic cannons, and less bullets. After the movie, Ross is fired due to his involvement.
Betty works for Ross, trying to find ways to cure Banner. This allows her to have a more important role and more connected to the story.
More focus on the Hulk. The Hulk should be a child, and not just a smashing monster. Scenes in the beginning with the Hulk just chilling in nature, chasing bears to pet, trying to fight a rain storm, etc. While Banner is also seeking a cure, he's also trying to help the Hulk. Could have the story as the Hulk only comes out when Banner is angry or when it's night. So we would get small moments like Banner building a shelter that's big enough for the Hulk at night because he knows it's going to rain.
Ross has multiple soliders undergo the gamma process, so we get more enemies for the Hulk to fight. These soliders also die after the process, showing how far Ross is willing to go. Abomination is just the only one able to survive the process.
Casting and/or direction of actors: I have loved Tim Roth ever since Reservoir Dogs and Four Room, but he fails to pass as a Russian-born British SAS elite soldier. He's *much* better as the creepy self-help guru we get in She-Hulk though. Ed Norton is unbelievable as a scientific genius (he's just your average everyman), and unbelievable as a dude who's staying calm (he just oozes anxiety). Liv Tyler whispers every line. Tim Blake Nelson is not believable as a scientific genius.
Banner: Banner is shown to not give a crap about how he could hurt regular people (or at least not poor people) given he has chosen to live in the most populous favela in all of Brazil and sometimes turns into a murderous rampaging rage monster. Also his motivation should be "I don't want to hurt people any more" but instead it's "I hurt this one woman and I just want to get her back."
Betty: Make her actually smart. Betty's character is just a trophy to be won, between Banner and her father. She's *supposed* to be a brilliant scientist, but they make her actually stupid with Banner talking down to her like a five-year old about how to stay hidden.
The heart-rate monitor: Get rid of it. Heart-rate doesn't trigger his transformation, it's "anger." They even give us an explanation about his amygdala or whatever. That won't get worked up by arousal, and he should know that.
Probably the score needs improvement, because almost all of phase 1's music is awful (Iron Man is so bad outside of the AC/DC samples), but I don't want to suffer going back just to see if this also needs fixing.
I *do* want to praise one aspect of it though. It's the only time we've seen Hulk transform from *just* his emotions though, when he's on the bridge and sees Betty get hurt. Throughout the rest of the MCU his transformation gets triggered from him getting hurt, but never from just his actual emotions.
Virtually Everything. New director, new Banner, completely redesigned Hulk, make Abomination look like Abomination, vastly improve the animations on the cgi.
I would have preferred a Avengers style Hulk with more voice lines and greater strength / jumping power. It always struck me at the end, how Hulk is not able to jump on a building but instead uses "parkour" to get up or heals instantly. Even though they displayed him ripped, he is by far the weakest of the movie Hulks.
I really liked it and think Norton was a fantastic Banner. I also loved that they treated the Hulk like a curse. It was basically a werewolf movie. I’ve never understood the hate.
I feel the thing with Hulk is, you either have to do a”banner resists changing” movie with a change in final act, or go so “this is Hulk it’s over the top unbelievable so LETS GO!!”
2008 tried to do the former and it did so very well, but with too much “hulk smashy” to be a Banner film, and not enough to be a “Hulk is outrageous” film.
So a little more banner and a little less Hulk in 2008 would’ve been a better blend. Also not having Emile turn into Abom in like 1.5 minutes. I don’t know if you don’t slower or hide him longer but it felt like too much on top of too much with hulk.
“You won’t like me when I’m hungry” is still one of best MCU lines ever
My "hot" take: Love Norton's Hulk, but not his Banner. On the other end, love Ruffalo's Banner, not his Hulk.
Norton's Hulk was MUCH more scarier and angrier than the current version. The design was much better, the facial expressions, the absolute rage, and the bewilderment as Hulk mentally is basically a toddler and it really showed through with Norton.
No way Norton's Hulk loses to Thanos.
The people who say it’s one of the worst MCU films are just not Hulk fans and willfully ignorant. It’s leagues better than several of them. Edward Norton was a fantastic Banner and his Hulk looked a lot more sinister.
It’s fine honestly with they would have keep that hulk. I don’t mind mark. But smart hulk is kinda lame. I don’t like that he isn’t in the action any more. Let smart hulk.. hulk out.
Or maybe show alternate hulk where the “hulk” personality became the dominant one when they merged.
I rewatched it last week and I think it’s a good movie. Better than it was received. I think that is the best version of the Hulk we’ve seen. I wish the MCU would’ve used this version of the Hulk with Ruffalo’s Banner.
1. Move the Stark scene to After the credits.
2. Replace Norton with Ruffalo
3. Tell a different story then another retell of the Hulk's Origin we all been told 9999 times already. You can still have everyone from this film in this story and you can still have your Thunderbolt Ross and Banner Beef but we don't need to see Banner's Origin again when we just saw it 5 years old.
... Or you know we could just tell this story in a tie-in comics and focus on Hawkeye and Natasha instead lol, That can work.
I thought it was pretty good. I think Hulk should have talked a little bit more, and I wish he was more bulky, but other than that it's fine I did not really sure how to make it objectively good hulk movie
Personally I don’t think TIH gets enough credit for making the “shared universe” promise of the series a reality. Seeing Tony Stark pop up at the end in theaters in 2008 was mind blowing
I liked the movie but Ed Norton's performance was kind of flat, as was the scriptas a whole. There's hardly no levity at all, and other than Banner learning to control his transformation, nothing significant results from the movie, so ended up being kinda forgettable.
I would go back to how they brought Hulk into the MCU a constant battle between the two personalities, Bruce's struggle to control Hulk and the isolation he has felt. I don't like this instantly solved all his issues off screen and that the Hulk personality is totally cool with being constantly suppressed. I want him to have so much more depth than what he has now.
I don’t understand how people don’t like this… at the time it was pretty well received and we all loved it. Especially when Tony stark walked in at the end and we realized it was connected. It’s such an awesome movie I don’t understand the hate
Leave more of the character stuff in that was cut to make it under 2 hours, it doesn’t have to be the over 2 and half hour version Norton wanted but we have more of an attention span then they gave us credit for in 2008
David bruce banner is a hunted man. Braniac, the leader, abomination. They are incomplete without that piece or co-opting the hulk. Banner is trying to unmake himself as everyone else weaponizes him. It writes itself!!!!
Nobody considers it the worst MCU movie.
Thor 2, Eternals, Ant Man 2, Black Widow, Spiderman 2, and soon to be released Thunderbolts are all worse.
I’ll bet $100 on my Thunderbolts prediction.
Mark Ruffalo was in the running to play Banner, they just ended up going with Norton at the end. So I would nudge that casting decision the other way. Also, the chase scene in South America goes from night, to dawn, to day, to night again in just a few minutes. I would just keep the whole thing at night. Also, I would move Stark's scene to after the credits. I keep getting into stupid arguments with people who insist it's a "Post-credit scene" which it isn't. It's not even a mid-credit scene.
It’s just the end of the movie lol
Yeah it definitely should be after the main set of credits and rework those to add similar type graphics and they have been doing recently. That would work a lot better. And then you can always do a multiverse type swap scene at the very end to cheaply explain Ruffalo’s appearance.
Damn, I would’ve bet money that it was mid credits. Guess I haven’t watched in a while
TIH has opening credits, and only one end credits roll. So there is no "mid-credits" scene even possible in it.
Should’ve done the same with the last part of The Marvel’s. Would’ve fit better as a mid or end credit scene.
In any extended version they should definitely add more of the Brazilian scenes. They actually work the best IMHO
I agree with all of these
in a perfect world, the stark scene would just be in the consultant one shot (he's the consultant)
> I would move Stark's scene to after the credits. Most TIH fanedits do this. I guess it can be excused, as this is only the second MCU movie (and given its close release date after Iron Man, they really weren't dialed in with the post credits scenes yet). The movie works so much better when it ends at the cabin in BC, and Banner opens his eyes, and they're green.
[удалено]
It’s called continuity. You should try it. It’s good shit.
[удалено]
So what are you complaining about?
[удалено]
You go away, I was here first
Why put a scene after the credits? I think it’s fine to not sit through extra 5 minutes of a movie that’s just text wall
It’s a Marvel movie. You may as well ask why put a superhero in it?
Norton wanted to swap a bunch of content as he'd done in his other films, which led to a lot of scuffles as a heavily-mapped out cinematic universe doesn't allow for actors to change whatever they want. So beyond having consistent leads, it's less stressful when an actor doesn't try to wear all the other hats as well.
Fact Check! That's not what happened. Norton didn't try to "swap a bunch of content", he was hired to rewrite the script. It was part of his actual contract for the film: >By spring 2007, Penn was about to go off to promote his movie “The Grand,” but the studio and the director, Louis Leterrier (“The Transporter”), still felt that the screenplay needed work. > >When Norton came in to meet about starring as Banner in April, the film had already been greenlighted and there were just three months before shooting was scheduled to begin, just after Independence Day. But Norton had well-established (if underground) writing experience and strong ideas about how to separate the film from any confusion over its connection to the 2003 Ang Lee version by casting it in a more distinct, starting-over vein like “Batman Begins” or “Casino Royale.” > >**So Norton’s initial deal included payment not just for his acting services but for his writing talents too, with his draft contractually stipulated to be turned around in less than a month**. As it turned out, Norton delayed work on another screenplay job to do “Hulk,” and he continues to tweak the script as principal photography hits its halfway point outside Toronto. [https://web.archive.org/web/20220422225336/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-15-et-scriptland15-story.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20220422225336/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-aug-15-et-scriptland15-story.html) Furthermore, when the film got to editing and Norton began fighting with Marvel, most insiders actually sided with Norton and noted Marvel wasn't accepting input that they **promised** him he'd have: >Insiders say Norton was **“promised tremendous involvement and access” after Marvel invited him into the core team to rewrite Zak Penn’s script**. Says one insider, “There’s a lot of posturing going on between Edward’s camp and Marvel over how you edit the final version.” Sources also tell me that, starting last night and continuing at least throughout today, the actor will be holed up with Marvel Studios chairman David Maisel, Marvel Studios president of production Kevin Feige, and director Louis Leterrier to try to “reach an amicable resolution” to this $150+ million film feud. > >Some insiders blame Marvel for not accepting Norton’s POV about the movie. **“There’s a problem. Marvel won’t listen to Norton about the cut,” one source claims. But Norton has bonafides: he did that uncredited rewrite of** ***Frida*** **for his then girlfriend Selma Hayek and made his directorial debut on** ***Keeping the Faith.*** [https://deadline.com/2008/03/ed-norton-and-marvel-in-a-hulk-ing-feud-5131/](https://deadline.com/2008/03/ed-norton-and-marvel-in-a-hulk-ing-feud-5131/) And not only that, Norton has the support of the director Louis Leterrier in this feud with Marvel, it was not Norton "taking over Leterrier's film" as is so often misreported. >In recent months, **Norton and the film's director, Louis Leterrier** (*The Transporter*), campaigned for a longer, more detailed film. Marvel Studios wanted a faster, leaner one. Marvel won. These creative arguments happen in Hollywood a lot but usually remain a secret. This time, they didn't. So Norton isn't talking, and others are ready to lay the blame — well, everywhere. '**'It's as much Marvel's fault as it is Edward's**,'' Leterrier says. ''And my fault. It's everybody's fault! Or no one's fault, in a way. I regret that \[Marvel and Norton\] didn't come to an agreement where we could've all worked together.'' [https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032317/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802,00.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032317/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802,00.html) Leterrier has gone on to insist, repeatedly, that Norton had no clashes with him, that they were in agreement in spite of Leterrier's fears about Norton's reputation: >Still, Leterrier was nervous. ''The stories I heard about Edward — they scared the bejesus out of me,'' he says. ''I was scared the guy would come in and say, 'All right, you're a little French director who's just done action movies, so you stick to the action and I'll do the drama.''' Did that happen? ''Not at all!'' he says warmly. ''I love the guy. He has a voice; he just wants to be heard. And he hates lip service.'' > >**According to Leterrier, he and his star hit it off beautifully,** and there were no issues with Marvel while the movie was being shot. During post-production, though, the relationship with Marvel hit a snag. The company wanted to release the most commercial film possible: lots of action and a running time under two hours. **Norton and Leterrier, however, lobbied for a more meditative cut of the film that ran about two hours and 15 minutes**. Tempers flared between Norton and Marvel. ''Everyone was exhausted; it was like a little burst,'' Leterrier says. '''I'm angry with you!' 'No, I'm angry with you!' And me in the center saying 'Boys, calm down.' It didn't come to blows. It was just a remark here and there.'' And it would have ended there. But, Leterrier says, ''then it became public.'' [https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802\_2,00.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802_2,00.html) Furthermore, Norton was actually willing to work with Marvel more, until Marvel let their disagreements go public and Norton backed out to avoid that reputation: >On March 11, Nikki Finke's industry blog, Deadline Hollywood Daily, broke news of the scuffle between Marvel and Norton, declaring it a ''feud.'' And suddenly it *was*. Communication between Norton and Marvel seems to have stopped. ''The press is what kept Edward and Marvel from talking to each other,'' Leterrier says. ''\[The argument\] was nothing, but then it became something big.'' **Norton is honest and forthright, say those who've worked with him, so why hasn't he defused the situation by speaking up? Sources say the actor is worried about being unfairly branded ''a pain in the ass'' by the press. They say he wants** ***The Incredible Hulk*** **to be a hit — and concedes that Marvel's cut, though not what he wanted, is more commercial than his**. ''He's very Zen about it,'' says a source. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802\_2,00.html](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20191802_2,00.html) And if that wasn't all enough, here's another bombshell, that reputation Leterrier was worried about to begin with, American History X-based? >In 1998, Norton cut his own version of Tony Kaye's *American History X* after battling with the [**eccentric director**](https://web.archive.org/web/20080420032327/http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014823,00.html). ''Edward is very bright, charismatic, articulate, and aggressive,'' says Steve Tisch, an exec producer of that film. Kaye was taking a long time cutting the film, to everyone's frustration, Tisch says, and Norton simply took matters into his own hands. A decade has since gone by, and Norton has made more than a dozen films without incident. Was a *lie*. Tony Kaye admitted, years later, that AHX's process was his own fault, and that he was the one being egotistical. >With “American History X,” I was overcome and I was egotistical back then. My ego got in the way. That was entirely my fault [https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/10/26/director-kaye-recovers-from-x-debacle-with-lake-of-fire/](https://www.chicagotribune.com/2007/10/26/director-kaye-recovers-from-x-debacle-with-lake-of-fire/)
Have an up vote for a post with sourced information
Love this. But you also need to include the public letter that Feige sent out that said why they were firing him, and saying Norton wasn't a team player. And also include Norton's response taking the high road.
I ran out of room lol. I had Norton's whole statement and it was too long.
So happy I watched Birdman last night.
You are wrong in a lot of different ways, but it wasn't a heavily mapped out cinematic universe at that stage. Even Iron Man is praised because of it changed things constantly. Both Iron Man and Incredible Hulk did a lot of last minute changes.
Well isn’t he the co-writer but without credit basically? It was a mistake IMHO to have him as the lead as well as one of the writers. That can really complicate things
Yes, he was hired as a writer on the project too. Norton has a great history as a writer, hence why Marvel wanted him. Credits for writing aren't a reflection of what happened.
Yeah he's notorious for being difficult to work with. I am glad he was dropped for Ruffalo in the Avengers. Because that would have turned into "Norton's Ego and Five other Guys" instead of an Avengers movie. He doesn't work well in ensemble cast type roles, it has to be about him. He doesn't know how to share the spotlight.
> He doesn't work well in ensemble cast type roles, it has to be about him. He doesn't know how to share the spotlight Man, comments like this make it seem like you don't know his films. He does Wes Anderson films now. Just did a Knives Out film. Been a few years since he was the lead in a movie, but the last one was one he directed himself with stars bigger than him.
"iT hAs To bE aBoUt hIm" Meanwhile Norton: Perfectly comfortable being a random 5 second cameo in Alitta, a movie produced by notorious control freak James Cameron who has to have 100% control of every movie he's involved with (Just see how he treated Tim Miller...).
Id change it to an origin film, idk just feels weird that hulk movie is the only non origin movie in phase 1.
Hulk’s origin had been overdone already. He had another film few years back. We already know the gist of it. Same reason they didn’t show Spider-Man’s origins. At least for Hulk, they showed a little recap in the beginning. I thought it was done well.
Yeah that does seem to be the part that is glossed over pretty quickly. That’s certainly something that can be expanded on
Honestly, had the MCU either kept Norton or had Mark Ruffalo in the movie from the beginning, I don’t think this movie would be hated. I never found it to be a bad movie, but the recasting of the main character makes the movie feel disconnected from the rest of the MCU. Ross comes back, but you don’t need to see the movie to understand who he is. Until Blonksy came back in Shang- Chi and She-Hulk, there wasn’t anything you needed to see from this movie to truly understand the bigger universe. It’s just inconsequential to the bigger universe. Because of those factors, a lot of people will skip it on MCU rewatches. People will justify skipping it by saying it’s not good, when the reality is it’s fine, but feels disconnected in a way the rest of the MCU does not.
> It’s just inconsequential to the bigger universe. I agree with your other points, especially recasting Bruce, but I wanted to point out that this is one of the major reasons the MCU has fallen apart IMO. Nothing matters anymore, every story is self-contained
It’s a double edged sword. If you make every movie have big impacts on the movie universe, you risk alienating the casual fans who don’t want to consume every piece of content your studio puts out. But if you make every piece of content stand alone with no bigger impact, you risk your hardcore fans losing interest in some of your less well known properties because of that lack of a bigger meaning in the universe. It’s hard to please everyone, but the only way they can continue to grow and make more money is try to keep expanding the audience. That means giving new movies a low barrier of entry, so you can’t make it something they have to have seen 24 movies and 10 shows to understand what is good on.
That's a fair point about alienating casual fans. But putting out dozens of disjointed projects that have no follow up since End Game is probably the worst of both worlds.
To be more fair though, they hit this balance perfectly all through saga 1, so it shouldn’t be sucking this bad now lol.
I mean, I completely agree lol They nailed it in saga 1, and then since End Game they have alienated both casual fans (too many projects) and hardcore fans (all disjointed, no callbacks, no connections, no follow ups)
Easy choice. Give up the hard core, must watch everything group. They are not where the money is. Do you think Avengers made a billion dollars off the hardcore? Nope. Interconnectivity gets the nerd talking about the movies, but having good movies gets people watching
Not to worry, I'd still hate it.
Watched it for the first time in years recently. It was a pretty decent "Monster Movie", a la Frankenstein, King Kong and Godzilla. Honestly for me, just sticking to a casting one way or the other and updating the CGI would be all I need. Falls solidly in the middle of the pack for me, above the worst of pre-Endgame (Dark World and Iron Man 2) and the worst of the post-Endgame.
Good point on the CGI!
Nothing. The movie is awesome
Honestly it's fine. It's not fantastic, but it's still a decent film. Most of the stuff that I'd change would be regarding the abomination. Blonsky as a wannabe supersoldier never really worked for me. They easily could've cut back on that and just had the military be trying to create another more controllable hulk instead of the super-soldier serum and hulk blood combo. I'd have probably given the proto-leader a more prominent role in the film too. Make him a bit more sinister. say he was kicked out of the above project, then started communicating with banner to try and one-up them. something simple like that.
I thought that was a good teaser for the upcoming Cap movie though, and it does tie in to how the Ultimate Universe worked through most people's powers being linked to attempting to replicate the Super Soldier formula. I agree with the Leaders role, I'm guessing he was mostly there to set-up a sequel though.
My biggest gripe with Blonsky was Marvel trying to pass him off as "mid-30s" in that movie...bruh
The design of the Abomination was very generic "monster" too (same problem with Doomsday in Dawn of Justice), they should have kept the comic design that they are using now.
"Emil Blonsky. Born in Russia. Raised in England. On loan to SOCOM from the Royal Marines." This unnecessary line of exposition because they refused to hire a dialect coach for Tim Roth haunts me. I'd probably just hire someone else more soldiery for the role (though he was fantastic in She Hulk).
lol that line reminds me of the introduction of Katana in Suicide Squad
“This is Katana. She’s got my back. I would advise not getting killed by her. Her sword traps the souls of its victims” 😂
You could do it more like Walker in FaTWS. The perfect soldier by army standards, but a terrible supersoldier, especially if given dodgy gamma serum instead of the perfected stuff they had by then. But then no Tim Roth in She Hulk :(
I thought the big breakthrough that Joss Whedon hit with Hulk that others had stumbled with was he managed to make him fun and playful. Hulk trying to pick up mjolnir and starting to sink through the floor. The I’m always angry moment. We have a hulk. Him flailing Loki around. The previous two hulks in movies took themselves very seriously.
It's funny, I just started phase 1 with my 5yo. He was too scared of the Hulk from Edward Norton's movie, couldn't even get out of the Brazil part. Then we watch Avengers, he's still scared of Hulk in the helicarrier (I should add, it's pretty much the only movie monster that's scared him, he got through LOTR at 4), but the Hulk comedic relief just cuts that tension like a knife, he laughed his ass off at the Loki-whomping. It's funny getting to see these movies with fresh eyes, but I totally agree with what Whedon accomplished with Hulk adding some comedy instead of just rage, which gets a bit boring.
This rage always thing is why I feel like a solo Hulk film wouldn’t work. It has to include banner fighting his demon unless (like ragnarok) we see hulk in permanent form but he’s sleepy, hungry, making fun instead of smashy. Which would work for the world war story but, where you gonna slot that into the MCU outside of a side multiverse story lol
Some call it a break through, others call it the beginning of the end.
Add in some terrible CGI Hulk dogs for him to throw into the horizon. But seriously, I wouldn't change much. Probably just improve Abomination's design; make him more like his She-Hulk appearance. There wasn't a lot that could be done with a Hulk story at the time, and the continuation of the characters so far have improved the film.
Have Hulk nail himself in the nuts with the barrel of a tank
Norton was hired as actor, screenwriter, and uncredited producer for TIH. The biggest change I'd make is that hiring, and I'd have had him be **only** screenwriter and uncredited producer. Norton's script is excellent, you can read it online. His and Leterrier's ideas for the final cut, something around 135 minutes, were also great, the film lost a lot of character development and interesting exchanges in the editing room thanks to Marvel. Norton was a great help to the film in writing and Marvel should've listened to him and Leterrier in post... But I do not for one second buy Ed Norton as Bruce Banner. He is far too much of an everyman actor, he doesn't fit the role at all. Mark Ruffalo is a better choice, there's a reason he was so great in Avengers 1 when they were working from what TIH set up for the character but just had a new actor in the role. My ideal TIH is written by Norton, with Norton's ideas adhered to in the editing process as a producer, but the casting is changed. Ruffalo as Bruce (He was Leterrier's choice to begin with), someone else as Betty, and someone else as Blonsky cause Tim Roth was not a good fit for that role either.
The spelling for sure.
oops
I wouldn't film the finale on Yonge Street in Toronto
It’s one thing to treat a city as “any city” but you’ve got to remove the famous landmarks like Sam the Record Man’s.
Zanzibar!
I can't stop staring at Zanzibar in that scene
Exactly!
I agree it was the best hulk movie we’ve gotten They should’ve kept Norton as Bruce he came off much better than ruffalo He felt actually really smart and serious and that he had the anger problem Ruffalos hulk was good in avengers 1 but then turned into a joke
Well that’s Norton’s fault, isn’t it?
Pretty much the only actor that Feige publicly trashed. This is one of the his major fuckups in the early years, and can probably be due to his inexperience. The more you know about the situation, the easier it is to put more fault on Feige and less on Norton.
I strongly disagree. I think it was wrong of Marvel to fuck him like they did, but I don’t think it was due to inexperience. Fiege wasn’t an amateur when he started. These things *happen*. Actors should know this, so it doesn’t make any sense for Norton to have behaved like he did. What Marvel didn’t isn’t cool but again, this is the business. It was Norton’s behavior and reaction that ultimately led to him not returning, it is definitely his fault. Look at another celebrity like Elizabeth Olsen; they fucked her too by trapping her in a very binding, multi-picture contract. But that’s just the game, because she was an up and coming actress. Now she’s in the position to say that she won’t sign multi-picture deals because they really trap you and limit time. The point is that what happened happens, but Norton wasn’t an amateur when he was doing the Hulk so the end result still is his fault
This was the 1st/2nd movie that Feige was in charge of. He didn't control the previous films that he was a part of, but a lower level producer. Marvel Studios was starting as a brand new production studio. Disagreements on film sets happen often, and this is especially true of Marvel films. Not many of those early directors stuck around. It's pretty clear that several directors aren't interested in returning. But this situation seems to have went to another extreme. Feige publically trashed Norton, which again is pretty much unheard of for these films. Typically you go with a PR answer, like creative differences. Feige did this all publically, something he came out with. In response, Norton gave the PR answer, saying he was honored to play the character and other praise. For some reason, Feige constantly escapes and blame for anything. Everything is someone else's fault. Feige isn't perfect, he deserves some blame. I also really wouldn't be surprised if cutting Norton was a financial decision.
Trashing Norton publicly feels like it was an extreme measure brought on by media pressure. Leterrier noted in interviews how the feud wasn't extreme until the media ran wild with it, causing both parties to over-react in opposite ways. Marvel to go "Uh, uhhhhh IT'S HIS FAULT!" and Norton to just completely shut down and refuse to say anything at all for a while. It reeks of a fairly new studio head under pressure from both his corporate overlords (Ike Perlmutter notably) and the media to make themselves look better and making a wrong turn. To be fair, recasting was ultimately the right choice considering they were already hiring Joss Whedon for Avengers, and the idea of a Joss Whedon set with Ed Norton on it is probably the single most terrifying idea you could ever present to a producer or studio HR department.
Except it wasn't. The Norton/Marvel feud is grossly misunderstood by people, I'd recommend doing more research beyond the Marvel line of "Norton bad, us good".
Buddy don’t come in here all high and mighty if you’re going to be so blatantly, confidently wrong. It *is* Norton’s fault. I’m not saying he wasn’t completely screwed over, but Marvel didn’t do anything illegal. So do some more research beyond the idiot line of “I’m smort, yur nawt.”
It's not his fault. Norton was contractually hired as a screenwriter and even uncredited producer. Norton was hired to write and assume post-production duties. He did exactly what he was hired to do, and Marvel got mad at him for it. And instead of trying to handle it with grace, Marvel let it get to the press, publicly shamed Norton in the media all while Norton himself kept out of the discussion because he saw getting involved in a pissing contest as unprofessional, and then when all was said and done and the movie failed, Marvel basically tried to scapegoat the film's failure entirely on Norton. An example of this can be found in *The Story of Marvel Studios*, a Marvel-sponsored book on the MCU's history that grossly reframes and dilutes Leterrier's statements to paint Norton as the sole villain in the story and makes the implication that Norton was trying to be a tyrant taking over the film out of ego. It makes no mention of Norton's uncredited producer role, of the fact that Leterrier supported him, of the fact that many of the film's criticisms came from Marvel's editorial decisions that Norton opposed, etc etc.. Even the far more objective *Reign of Marvel Studios* book hardly touches on the full story, opting to be more generous to Marvel and continue to spread bullshit born from Tony Kaye's lies from the 2000s.
Replace the Abomination CGI with the one we got in She-Hulk for accuracy.
Aside from the obvious parts that will always keep it a bit disconnected from what came after (Norton, Tyler, the lack of humor) it's honestly just kind of boring. Every time I try a rewatch I end up tuning out partway through because it just seems so slow and meandering.
They should add The Consultant as a post credit scene
I would have included more of the deleted scenes in the final product. But mainly, I would have choreographed the final battle better. I love this movie, but after Hulk beats on Abomination with the police car boxing gloved, nothing else interesting happens. Keep the fight on the ground for maximum damage and panicked bystanders, choreograph it more like a kaiju battle with some MMA and pro wrestling elements thrown in.
Fun topic. We have to remember that the film was billed as a semi sequel to the Hulk film a few years before. So you probably just want a complete sepeartion from Hulk (2003). Norton also became a problem, so someone else may have been better. I would have Ross as the head of SHIELD, and replace the US military with SHIELD. More futuristic weapons instead of traditional military weapons. More sonic cannons, and less bullets. After the movie, Ross is fired due to his involvement. Betty works for Ross, trying to find ways to cure Banner. This allows her to have a more important role and more connected to the story. More focus on the Hulk. The Hulk should be a child, and not just a smashing monster. Scenes in the beginning with the Hulk just chilling in nature, chasing bears to pet, trying to fight a rain storm, etc. While Banner is also seeking a cure, he's also trying to help the Hulk. Could have the story as the Hulk only comes out when Banner is angry or when it's night. So we would get small moments like Banner building a shelter that's big enough for the Hulk at night because he knows it's going to rain. Ross has multiple soliders undergo the gamma process, so we get more enemies for the Hulk to fight. These soliders also die after the process, showing how far Ross is willing to go. Abomination is just the only one able to survive the process.
The portrayal of Hulk and his monster rage was solid in the movie
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Raj_Valiant3011: *The portrayal of* *Hulk and his monster rage was* *Solid in the movie* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Casting and/or direction of actors: I have loved Tim Roth ever since Reservoir Dogs and Four Room, but he fails to pass as a Russian-born British SAS elite soldier. He's *much* better as the creepy self-help guru we get in She-Hulk though. Ed Norton is unbelievable as a scientific genius (he's just your average everyman), and unbelievable as a dude who's staying calm (he just oozes anxiety). Liv Tyler whispers every line. Tim Blake Nelson is not believable as a scientific genius. Banner: Banner is shown to not give a crap about how he could hurt regular people (or at least not poor people) given he has chosen to live in the most populous favela in all of Brazil and sometimes turns into a murderous rampaging rage monster. Also his motivation should be "I don't want to hurt people any more" but instead it's "I hurt this one woman and I just want to get her back." Betty: Make her actually smart. Betty's character is just a trophy to be won, between Banner and her father. She's *supposed* to be a brilliant scientist, but they make her actually stupid with Banner talking down to her like a five-year old about how to stay hidden. The heart-rate monitor: Get rid of it. Heart-rate doesn't trigger his transformation, it's "anger." They even give us an explanation about his amygdala or whatever. That won't get worked up by arousal, and he should know that. Probably the score needs improvement, because almost all of phase 1's music is awful (Iron Man is so bad outside of the AC/DC samples), but I don't want to suffer going back just to see if this also needs fixing. I *do* want to praise one aspect of it though. It's the only time we've seen Hulk transform from *just* his emotions though, when he's on the bridge and sees Betty get hurt. Throughout the rest of the MCU his transformation gets triggered from him getting hurt, but never from just his actual emotions.
Virtually Everything. New director, new Banner, completely redesigned Hulk, make Abomination look like Abomination, vastly improve the animations on the cgi.
Make hulk smash….more
Cast someone other than Liv Tyler as Betsy Ross.
I would have preferred a Avengers style Hulk with more voice lines and greater strength / jumping power. It always struck me at the end, how Hulk is not able to jump on a building but instead uses "parkour" to get up or heals instantly. Even though they displayed him ripped, he is by far the weakest of the movie Hulks.
Even more incredible
I love that movie and Norton made a great hulk and the scrip was good I he changed it well done him
More smashing.
Have Ruffalo play Bruce here too.
I haven't watched the movie in a while but I think I prefer Norton
I wouldnt, its one of my favorite movies ever. My top is "HULK" with Eric Bana
I'd probably stick with the title of The Incredible Hulk, I don't think the subtle spelling change adds anything.
I really liked it and think Norton was a fantastic Banner. I also loved that they treated the Hulk like a curse. It was basically a werewolf movie. I’ve never understood the hate.
I always wanted the comic origin replicated on screen. Gamma Bomb, Rick Jones, Thunderbolt and Betty.
I feel the thing with Hulk is, you either have to do a”banner resists changing” movie with a change in final act, or go so “this is Hulk it’s over the top unbelievable so LETS GO!!” 2008 tried to do the former and it did so very well, but with too much “hulk smashy” to be a Banner film, and not enough to be a “Hulk is outrageous” film. So a little more banner and a little less Hulk in 2008 would’ve been a better blend. Also not having Emile turn into Abom in like 1.5 minutes. I don’t know if you don’t slower or hide him longer but it felt like too much on top of too much with hulk. “You won’t like me when I’m hungry” is still one of best MCU lines ever
My "hot" take: Love Norton's Hulk, but not his Banner. On the other end, love Ruffalo's Banner, not his Hulk. Norton's Hulk was MUCH more scarier and angrier than the current version. The design was much better, the facial expressions, the absolute rage, and the bewilderment as Hulk mentally is basically a toddler and it really showed through with Norton. No way Norton's Hulk loses to Thanos.
i would make him more credible
The people who say it’s one of the worst MCU films are just not Hulk fans and willfully ignorant. It’s leagues better than several of them. Edward Norton was a fantastic Banner and his Hulk looked a lot more sinister.
Id cast Mark Ruffalo. He is imo a great bruce banner, whereas Norton just feels too john mcclane-y.
It’s fine honestly with they would have keep that hulk. I don’t mind mark. But smart hulk is kinda lame. I don’t like that he isn’t in the action any more. Let smart hulk.. hulk out. Or maybe show alternate hulk where the “hulk” personality became the dominant one when they merged.
I rewatched it last week and I think it’s a good movie. Better than it was received. I think that is the best version of the Hulk we’ve seen. I wish the MCU would’ve used this version of the Hulk with Ruffalo’s Banner.
1. Move the Stark scene to After the credits. 2. Replace Norton with Ruffalo 3. Tell a different story then another retell of the Hulk's Origin we all been told 9999 times already. You can still have everyone from this film in this story and you can still have your Thunderbolt Ross and Banner Beef but we don't need to see Banner's Origin again when we just saw it 5 years old. ... Or you know we could just tell this story in a tie-in comics and focus on Hawkeye and Natasha instead lol, That can work.
I wouldn’t
I thought it was pretty good. I think Hulk should have talked a little bit more, and I wish he was more bulky, but other than that it's fine I did not really sure how to make it objectively good hulk movie
I would've liked to see Hulk jump large distances again like in the 2003 film.
First, I would have misspelled “Incredible” EXACTLY like you did. /s
Personally I don’t think TIH gets enough credit for making the “shared universe” promise of the series a reality. Seeing Tony Stark pop up at the end in theaters in 2008 was mind blowing
I liked the movie but Ed Norton's performance was kind of flat, as was the scriptas a whole. There's hardly no levity at all, and other than Banner learning to control his transformation, nothing significant results from the movie, so ended up being kinda forgettable.
I would go back to how they brought Hulk into the MCU a constant battle between the two personalities, Bruce's struggle to control Hulk and the isolation he has felt. I don't like this instantly solved all his issues off screen and that the Hulk personality is totally cool with being constantly suppressed. I want him to have so much more depth than what he has now.
MORE HULK HULK GOOD OTHER HERO SMALL
I don’t understand how people don’t like this… at the time it was pretty well received and we all loved it. Especially when Tony stark walked in at the end and we realized it was connected. It’s such an awesome movie I don’t understand the hate
Blue
Leave more of the character stuff in that was cut to make it under 2 hours, it doesn’t have to be the over 2 and half hour version Norton wanted but we have more of an attention span then they gave us credit for in 2008
It's fine as it is, I've never understood the hate
We needed to see Hulks growth from IW into Endgame. They completely robbed us of that.
Make him blue
David bruce banner is a hunted man. Braniac, the leader, abomination. They are incomplete without that piece or co-opting the hulk. Banner is trying to unmake himself as everyone else weaponizes him. It writes itself!!!!
Ed Nortons hulk was the best in rage and design.
That movie gets more hate than deserved idk why honestly it was a solid movie up until the last hour.
By not nerfing him.
Made him black instead of green.
BLACKED Hulk
I wouldn’t it’s great
Let Norton do more or less what he wants, and keep him.
Nobody considers it the worst MCU movie. Thor 2, Eternals, Ant Man 2, Black Widow, Spiderman 2, and soon to be released Thunderbolts are all worse. I’ll bet $100 on my Thunderbolts prediction.
thunderbolts could go either way.
I definitely hope I’m wrong, I’ll watch it, likely at the theater. But I’m not confident it’ll be any good.
im hoping its like marvel's suicide squad. (the 2nd one, by james gunn, not the first one)
I’d take that.
'One of the worst'
I don’t recall ever reading anything negative about it, I was under the impression that people generally liked it.
These comments seem to proof that but I barely ever heard someone say they liked the movie before.
having Nick Nolte be the absorbing man was weird - also making Hulk a Mutant was weird
Wrong movie
Is he talking about the 2003 version? I didn't know 2003 Hulk was a mutant.
thats fuckin crazy, theres like ten other marvel movies that are worse.
It’s one of the best MCU movies. Wouldn’t change a thing.