Avi Arad Talks "Hulk 2" Development!

[ElderPredator]

Hey everybody,

In a recent interview with Marvel Executive Avi Arad, he made a lot of comments about how he felt about the first "Hulk" and how he felt it was too dark and is hoping for a mucher better sequel. He also had this to say about a possible villain for the next movie......

Soon, Arad is musing about the Hulk, whom many Hollywood observers now believe has the inside track to be the star of Marvel's debut self-made film. It would be an interesting choice, given that Ang Lee's version was a box office disappointment. But Arad thinks he knows what went wrong, and he has a plan for fixing it.

After praising Lee as a genius, Arad observes that "the Hulk movie was a study of anger, and people wanted a popcorn movie." Lee's film focused on the Hulk's origins - Bruce Banner's abusive father, his mutated DNA, the gamma ray accident that gave him the power to transform into a walking steroid attack. It was dark and intense, and Banner didn't even do his Hulk bit until nearly halfway through the film. "Our Hulk," Arad says, "will be a diet Hulk. Lighter. Focusing on the love story, Hulk as hero, and his battle with the villain."

For that villain, Arad has chosen one of his favorite baddies: Abomination, a former Yugoslav spy who has mutated into a 980-pound freak of terrifying strength and unpleasant demeanor. "He's capable of amazing feats," Arad says, eyes gleaming. And if Arad is right and the Hulk sequel or some of Marvel's other self-made films break into blockbuster territory, people will be saying the same thing about him someday.

HULK 2: The much-hyped 2003 original, directed by the celebrated Ang Lee, disappointed at the box office, but Marvel Studios CEO Avi Arad thinks Lee's depiction of scientist Bruce Banner and his giant green alter ego was too dark, and he envisions a less somber sequel. There's some residual skepticism about the character's cinematic prospects because of the earlier dud, but many insiders believe that Arad can revitalize the property.

From the sound of things, it looks like things are really gearing up for a sequel which I really hope since I did love the first one even with the crap reviews it was given. What do you all think of this?

Here is the link for the full story which is very, very long:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/05/01/8375925/index.htm

[Cronos]

i loved Hulk, its one of my favourite comic book flicks and id love to see a sequel, but only if the main actors from the first film return

[ElderPredator]

Originally posted by Cronos
i loved Hulk, its one of my favourite comic book flicks and id love to see a sequel, but only if the main actors from the first film return

Yeah for sure, Eric Banna was top notch as Bruce Banner and Jennifer Connelly was great (and gorgeous) as well!

[Patrick Bateman]

Very cool.

I liked Ang Lee's HULK, and really enjoyed the film's take on the character. And I've been hearing news about a sequel for awhile now. Hopefully with a little luck, this project will finally get off the ground. It was a pretty safe assumption that the sequel would no doubt be much lighter in tone, especially in contrast to the Ang Lee film. And although I understand why this has to happen, I hope the studio doesnt go too overboard with making it "kid friendly", because one of the things I enjoyed about Ang Lee's version was the relationships between each character and how that affected each and every one of them. Lee's HULK was a somewhat somber, but serious take on a Marvel Comics character that has been around since 1962, and I applaud him for bringing in a movie that wasnt exactly what we would call status quo.

As for the villian? The Abomination is a good choice. He's arguably the most popular out of all of The Hulk's villians, but I personally was hoping to see The Leader as the villian. However, The Abomination deserves his due, and I cant wait to finally see him realized in a live action Hulk movie sequel.

Oh ... and Jennifer Connelly, the angel of love and lust and everything good :D , will most likely return for the sequel (http://www.superherohype.com/news/hulknews.php?id=1999) according to her rep.

Not too sure about Bana, as I seem to read contradicting reports about his status with the franchise. But I certainly would hope to see him back.

[Tyler_Durden_208]

Awesome. I thought Hulk was great as a character study and an origin tale and now that we've established the Hulk, I have no problem with it straying into X-Men/Spider-Man territory in terms of the action. I still want a good story (bring David Hayter back!), and some good acting, and I don't want it to be treated like a complete summer blockbuster. I want it to be Hulk 1, with the action turned up to 11.:D

[cocksmokinclerk]

sounds good, i hated it the first time, but it grew on me and now its awesome

[thedudeman69]

God, the first was boring and lacked action. It NEEDED MORE ACTION. I mean, god. How did Ang Lee get away with Croching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and then he made Hulk. It blows my mind.

[XCoRyX]

Can't say this does any tickling to my fancy,personally. The first was extremely dull and boring.

[DareDevil]

Realy liked Hulk and i hope the sequel isn't that different i don't like how Avi is saying hes's going to dumb it down and this quote really isnt getting me excited "will be a diet Hulk. Lighter. Focusing on the love story"

Hope for the best!

[bigred760]

I also liked Hulk; I thought the dark tones and the anger issues brought something new to the comic book movie. While I'm not against a lighter sequel, I just hope they bring the original cast back. Won't feel much like a sequel without Bana and Connelly, and even Sam Elliott - oh yeah, and keep the Hulk CGI while you're at it.

[soda]

Originally posted by bigred760
I also liked Hulk; I thought the dark tones and the anger issues brought something new to the comic book movie. While I'm not against a lighter sequel, I just hope they bring the original cast back. Won't feel much like a sequel without Bana and Connelly, and even Sam Elliott - oh yeah, and keep the Hulk CGI while you're at it.

Hey BR, were you the guy who, a while ago, asked me what I thought about the first Hulk movie?

Well, I finally got around to watching it, and frankly, I didn't much care for the first one. Here's the thing, the movie was actually a good movie, I just felt it wasn't a good Hulk movie. I didn't like two things about it in particular:

1) I didn't like the fact that three minutes into the movie, it was oh so obvious that Ang Lee had never read a Hulk comic book in his life.

and

2) I didn't like the fact that the Hulk was a supporting character in his own movie, I didn't like the fact that the movie should have been "David and Bruce Banner, guest starring the Hulk."

I've heard a lot of people complain that the Hulk doesn't show up until the movie is half over. I'm okay with that, Batman doesn't show up until Batman Begins is half over, and that movie was great. Here's the key difference, Batman Begins was clearly written by someone who understood comics, that much was obvious three minutes into that film, whereas the hulk was made by someone who didn't. Piece of advice for future Hulk directors: try to avoid having the Hulk destroy a major populated area (San Francisco). That was a dead giveaway that the movie was taking place on our earth and not on the marvel universe earth, where the Hulk is actually from. They're different places. In the marvel universe, if the Hulk tears up a major populated area, here's what the residents say:

"look, up in the sky"

"it's a bird"

"it's a plane"

"......no actually, it is a plane, it's the SHIELD hellicarrier."

It's happened hundreds of times, over the years, the Hulk tears up a major populated area, and SHIELD shows up to stop him. Nick Fury always knows where the Hulk is. Now, I don't expect SHIELD to show up in someone else's movie, but if Batman in Batman Begins goes to Metropolis, and starts jumping off of rooftops, I expect Superman to show up. If Batman goes to Keystone city and starts jumping off of rooftops, I expect the Flash to show up. If Batman goes to Coast City and starts jumping off of rooftops, I expect Green Lantern to show up. That's the way things work in the DCU, as Batman himself said in Hush, "you don't go to Metropolis without being prepared for him." Smart directors know the rules of the game, that's why Batman, in Batman Begins, won't go to Metropolis, Keystone City or Coast city, but this being earth DCU that these tales take place in, supposedly those places all exist, and Batman could go there if he wanted to. It bugged me that Ang Lee ignored the fact, or wasn't aware of the fact, that if the Hulk tore up marvel U San Francisco, SHIELD would stop him.

Batman Begins is as realistic as any Superhero movie made, yet ironically, it doesn't take place in our world, it takes place in the fictional world of earth DCU. You can be realistic, but you had better know the rules of the game, and how far you can take that realism.

That being said, I'm all for a Hulk sequel, if done right. "Planet Hulk" is a very interesting comic, the leader and abomination are pretty interesting villians, this could be good.

[Shockwave]

I CRAVE more action fromt he sequel, but honestly hope they do not waste all the great acting talent that they have collected in favor of 90 minutes of HULK SMASH.

It doesnt have to be overly artsy like the first, but i do want some great character moments. More Hulk vrs Banner scenes maybe.

[RustyRazor]

Originally posted by ElderPredator
Hey everybody,

In a recent interview with Marvel Executive Avi Arad, he made a lot of comments about how he felt about the first "Hulk" and how he felt it was too dark and is hoping for a mucher better sequel. He also had this to say about a possible villain for the next movie......

Soon, Arad is musing about the Hulk, whom many Hollywood observers now believe has the inside track to be the star of Marvel's debut self-made film. It would be an interesting choice, given that Ang Lee's version was a box office disappointment. But Arad thinks he knows what went wrong, and he has a plan for fixing it.

After praising Lee as a genius, Arad observes that "the Hulk movie was a study of anger, and people wanted a popcorn movie." Lee's film focused on the Hulk's origins - Bruce Banner's abusive father, his mutated DNA, the gamma ray accident that gave him the power to transform into a walking steroid attack. It was dark and intense, and Banner didn't even do his Hulk bit until nearly halfway through the film. "Our Hulk," Arad says, "will be a diet Hulk. Lighter. Focusing on the love story, Hulk as hero, and his battle with the villain."

For that villain, Arad has chosen one of his favorite baddies: Abomination, a former Yugoslav spy who has mutated into a 980-pound freak of terrifying strength and unpleasant demeanor. "He's capable of amazing feats," Arad says, eyes gleaming. And if Arad is right and the Hulk sequel or some of Marvel's other self-made films break into blockbuster territory, people will be saying the same thing about him someday.

HULK 2: The much-hyped 2003 original, directed by the celebrated Ang Lee, disappointed at the box office, but Marvel Studios CEO Avi Arad thinks Lee's depiction of scientist Bruce Banner and his giant green alter ego was too dark, and he envisions a less somber sequel. There's some residual skepticism about the character's cinematic prospects because of the earlier dud, but many insiders believe that Arad can revitalize the property.

From the sound of things, it looks like things are really gearing up for a sequel which I really hope since I did love the first one even with the crap reviews it was given. What do you all think of this?

Here is the link for the full story which is very, very long:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/05/01/8375925/index.htm


Too dark? What?!
More like lacking a good foil.
I wouldn't have even thought about entertaining a sequel until I found out who the villain's supposed to be.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by soda
Hey BR, were you the guy who, a while ago, asked me what I thought about the first Hulk movie?

Well, I finally got around to watching it, and frankly, I didn't much care for the first one. Here's the thing, the movie was actually a good movie, I just felt it wasn't a good Hulk movie.

Yeah, I think it was me.

It's by far not my favorite comic book movie, but I liked it for what it was. My review is around this site somewhere.

I don't quite understand you explanation of the real world vs. the comic book world. Is it because San Francisco is a city in the real world, as opposed to Gotham City being a comic book city. I have no idea what SHIELD is.

[Patrick Bateman]

S.H.I.E.L.D. HISTORY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.H.I.E.L.D.)

I believe what Soda means is that instead of the military stepping in during The Hulk's rampage in the movie (which is what would happen in the real world), but in the Marvel Universe, anything having do do with superhuman threats is basically handled by SHIELD. Which has Nick Fury as it's executive director.

Which would have been pretty cool. But it might have had some people scratching their heads wondering what the fuck is SHIELD? No doubt bigred760 wouldnt have been alone in that. But still, it would have been a pretty cool nod saying that this is all happening in the Marvel Universe.

In the latest issue of The Comics Buyer's Guide, there is a article which includes long time Incredible Hulk writer, Peter David's outline for his Incredible Hulk script that he wrote in the late 90's when plans for a HULK movie first began. Pretty good stuff, especially the beginning. Which, IMO, is just a near perfect, if not perfect way to begin a Hulk movie. :cool:

[soda]

Originally posted by bigred760


I don't quite understand you explanation of the real world vs. the comic book world. Is it because San Francisco is a city in the real world, as opposed to Gotham City being a comic book city. I have no idea what SHIELD is.

Patrick Bateman neatly summarizes what SHIELD is, so I'll skip that discussion. As for your confusion, here's the explanation.

San Francisco is a city in the DCU.

San Francisco is a city in the marvel universe.

San Francisco is a city in our real world.

However, those three cities aren't the same city, the DCU san francisco is not the same place as the marvel U san francisco is not the same place as our san francisco. Here's how you can tell the difference:

- our universe, if the Hulk tears up a major US city (like San Francisco), the military and SWAT will show up to stop him (that's what happened in the Hulk movie)

- In the DCU, if the Hulk starts tearing up San Francisco, guess what? The teen titans will show up to stop him. They even live in that giant letter "T" shaped building out in the San Francisco bay, which you should have been able to see from the shot of the Hulk swimming across the bay.

- In the marvel universe, if the Hulk tears up San Francisco, SHIELD and the west coast avengers should all show up to stop him.

the marvel U earth is clearly not our earth, comic books operate in a world of fiction, with their own set of rules. In the marvel U, there are mutants, there's a place called Krakoa, there's an island called Genosha, and if you go far enough, you can get to a place called the Savage land, and Magneto has a base on a place called Asteriod M. When I watch any movie about a marvel character, I should believe that that movie is taking place in the marvel shared universe. When I watch Spiderman, I have no trouble believing that's Marvel's New York, and not our New York. Our New York doesn't have a daily bugle, amongst other clues.

If I was directing a Hulk movie, I would NEVER have the Hulk tear up a major populated area, unless I was also planning to have SHIELD in the movie. Anyone who has read any of the comics knows this happens all the time, and that SHIELD always shows up to stop the Hulk. That's the way it works in the Marvel U. If you've read any comics at all, you should know this, it's pretty basic, with just a little research.

It's not that Gotham is a fictional city name and San Francisco isn't, San Francisco also exists in the DCU, as a city. It's just that DCU San Francisco is a fictional town. It has Titan Tower out there in the bay, that's how you can tell it's not the San Francisco we know. If you're making a marvel movie, you should do the research, know the rules of the marvel U (and how those are very different from the rules of "our real world") and make the movie conform to the standards of the marvel U. That's all I'm saying.

[Lost in Space]

forgive me I don't have much time but i felt the desire to comment here, thus i did not read ALL of teh comments here. But im just not feelin' a Hulk 2 i mean the first one was mediocre but nothing worth a second shot...

[rodvcpetrie]

The talk about how SHIELD should of showed up; Maybe another studio has the film rights to Nick Fury and SHIELD therefore they couldn't have SHIELD appear.

I remember reading somewhere that you won't see any cross-over films set in the Marvel universe because each comic book's film rights are owned by different studios.

That could change however, since Marvel has their own film company. So we could see cross-over films if they re-purchase the rights from all the studios that now own rights to Marvel characters.

I hope I made sense.

[TheReaper]

Ok, I can understand how lots felt that Hulk was at times to long, and artsy, but it was still a very quality movie.
There is a lot of psychology behind the Hulk, and Lee addressed that well.

I like stories with plot and intelligence, this "popcorn" formula can be fun, but it makes for a forgetable movie. People hated Daredevil, it was cut to fast, and didn't seem to tie together well. That was an attempt to make it more appealing to the masses, but for those who took the time to see the directors cut, they have a whole new respect for the movie.

I hope they don't glaze this movie over, now that they have most of the technical stuff out of the way, they can afford to make it more faced paced, but lets hope they fill in the characters, especially newly introduced ones.

Do you think they should focus so much on the love angle with this movie? Love can't really work for Hulk, not the way he is, he's a tortured character that basically belongs alone in the mountain ranges or something.

As for wanting consistent cross-overs to fit with the marvel universe, forget about it for now. First off it would probably be to much to incorporate into any of these movies, and it's not like the Hulk was the only Marvel feature that could have used it. There's hundreds of hero's the marvel universe, look at the X-Men movies, with the huge events happening there, you could expect most of the marvel u to be involved.

[soda]

Originally posted by TheReaper

As for wanting consistent cross-overs to fit with the marvel universe, forget about it for now. First off it would probably be to much to incorporate into any of these movies, and it's not like the Hulk was the only Marvel feature that could have used it. There's hundreds of hero's the marvel universe, look at the X-Men movies, with the huge events happening there, you could expect most of the marvel u to be involved.


NO, no, no, that's not what I meant at all. I didn't mean that I wanted a crossover. I largely agree that it's probably better to keep such things to an absolute minimum (in other words, I probably wouldn't have a problem with seeing a scene where the Joker is being taken away by the cops in the next batman movie flick, and you see a throng of reporters, and one of them says "clark kent, daily planet, with a question...." but that's absolutely as far as I'd go, I wouldn't want any more cross-movie stuff than that). My problem wasn't that SHIELD didn't show up, now, follow me very carefully here, my problem is

What Soda's problem is:
that Ang Lee let the Hulk tear up San Francisco.

That should have never been allowed to happen. The Hulk should have never been allowed to get anywhere near a heavily populated, metro area in the first film. There's plenty to smash, between the military and the desert, and such, you don't need a heavily populated metro area to drive the point home. You guys are confusing cause and effect, my gripe wasn't that SHIELD didn't show up, it's that in the marvel universe, if the Hulk tears up a major metropolitan area, SHIELD, by definition, always shows up. Ang Lee's solution wouldn't be to incorporate SHIELD in the movie (a move I would oppose), his solution is to keep the Hulk far away from any major populated areas, and off of SHIELD's radar.

It's not really that complicated, all it takes is an understanding of one of the most core concepts of comic-books (which Ang Lee completely ignores): the shared universe. The marvel universe, of fiction, is like our own universe in the following respect: it's all interconnected, something happens on one end of that fictional globe, there's a reaction in the other, that's the core idea of a shared universe, nothing happens in a vacuum. Every single hero in the marvel universe has been trained by captain america, every single hero in the marvel universe has played poker at Ben Grimm's house. There's a shared history, it's what makes the marvel universe unique and not like our own earth, the marvel universe is it's own entity. As a film-maker, this fact of life must be acknowledged, now, different studios have different movie rights to different things, and that's fine, and most fans don't want to see franchises cross over anyway. So, the trick is to avoid putting characters into situation that would force a crossover.

Let me put it another way, if you want to make a Batman movie, and a Batman only movie, that's fine, but here's the kicker: don't make a batman movie about his adventures in metropolis. If you do, the instant you put Bruce on that plane to Metropolis, you had better show him walking to his vault in the bat-cave, and taking out his chunk of kryponite. Comic book batman would never go near metropolis without the green-K. It's an inmutable law of the DC universe, as Batman himself said in HUSH:

"you don't go to metropolis, without being prepared for him."

Having the Hulk tear up San Francisco is an equal faux pas, it's like sending batman to metropolish without any kryptonite, it's something that would never actually happen, it's counter to the character. Similarly, if the Hulk tears up a major marvel-verse city, SHIELD always shows up, it's like if Batman goes to Metropolis, he always takes the green-K, and if you don't know that that's the way things work, then you have no business making a movie about that fictional universe.

[TheReaper]

I get what you mean, and these sort of thoughts definately cross my mind when watching the X-Men movies.
Yet, in the early Hulk comics, wasn't it always the army that tried to take him down, was SHIELD even around in the earliy days of the Hulk, this I don't know.
I am sure Lee read some of the Hulk comics, or atleast had some "experts" fill him in, I thought he did alright, then again I have a very rudimentary knowledge of the character.
Yet I appreciated that Lee touched upon the psychology of the characters instead of simply relying on HULK SMASH!

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally posted by TheReaper
[B]in the early Hulk comics, wasn't it always the army that tried to take him down, was SHIELD even around in the earliy days of the Hulk, this I don't know.

Although I am sure Soda can elaborate more on the subject, I believe you are absolutely correct. "Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD" didnt really take off til the mid to late 60's when artist Jim Steranko took over the reigns with the art of the series. During The Hulk's early days, I believe it was usually General "Thunderbolt" Ross and the Army that were consistant enemies of The Hulk. Supervillain's like The Leader, and The Abomination eventually showed up during Hulk's "Tales to Astonish" days, which was before The Hulk got his own comic book title back, but for the most part, it was usually General Ross and the U.S. Army as The Hulk's most re-occuring enemy. SHIELD's presence as far as The Hulk is concerned, didnt really become apparant till later I think. Soda will correct me if I am wrong about this though.

I appreciated that Lee touched upon the psychology of the characters instead of simply relying on HULK SMASH!

Agreed.

[Shockwave]

I appreciated that Lee touched upon the psychology of the characters instead of simply relying on HULK SMASH!

I agree also. What we got was a product that was alot smarter then it had to be.

That said, i rather enjoyed it.

[TheReaper]

Unfortunately, the average movie goers aren't the biggest brains. Because of their stupidity we have to put up with crappy movie after crappy movie.
Anything that challenges them to think threatens them, and usually ends up flopping unless it's a real gem.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by TheReaper
Unfortunately, the average movie goers aren't the biggest brains. Because of their stupidity we have to put up with crappy movie after crappy movie.
Anything that challenges them to think threatens them, and usually ends up flopping unless it's a real gem.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait . . . . wait. What does a moviegoer's brains have to do with what a movie offers? God forbid they actually didn't like it. I don't think Hulk was a "thinking" movie; it was a dark, psychological movie - probably a darker movie than most moviegoers prefer their comic book movies to be. I don't think a moviegoer's intelligence has much to do with their enjoyment of a movie.

[Hack]

This is going to be one of the movies I can't wait to see.

[soda]

okay, okay, okay, let me try this again.

- I'm not interested in debating 60's marvel Hulk containment policies. Patrick Bateman is correct, so far as his information goes (at least, to my knowledge), SHIELD didn't really take off until the Steranko run of the 60s. In the early, early days of the Hulk, it was always the US army, and by and large, the US army is still the #1 Hulk villian (apologies to the leader and abomination). That's missing the point, again, my problem with the movie isn't that SHIELD should be in it, my problem with the movie is that it was so obviously made my someone whose never read a comic book. Here's my problem with the people who are debating this topic on this particular thread: most of you have also probably never read a Hulk comic book in your life. I recommend that change. Try "Planet Hulk". I dig it, and, as an added bonus, you get to find out what a dirty, rotten, stinkin' low-life Reed Richards really is.

Now, that being said, let me see if I can make the point a bit clearer, several of you on this thread, have talked about the darkness of this movie, or how it was a "thinking man's movie", versus a Hulk smash summer popcorn thing, and such. Here's my thing, as you can probably tell, I love psychological pieces, and I'm probably as much of a "thinking man" as anyone, but I didn't like the Hulk movie. I was thinking best today how to put this into words (it's hard to say, the SHIELD thing is really the manifestation of the symptoms, not the root problem itself), here's the best way I know how to get the point across. The Genius of Sam Rami's Spiderman and Christopher Nolan's Batman, what those two films had that Ang Lee's Hulk didn't is this:

Spiderman and Batman are realistic in that they present the DCU and the marvel U plausibly, they draw the viewer of the movie into that other world, and they make the viewer enter that world on it's own terms.

Ang Lee's Hulk does the opposite, it seeks to take the Hulk and move that being from out of the marvel universe and into our world, thus making the concept more plausible and relatable.

Both of these methods are attempts to do a movie realistically, the difference is that Spiderman and Batman achieve that realism by drawing the viewer into spidey and bat's world, the hulk achieves it by drawing the Hulk out from his own world and establishing him in our's.

Now, while that might not seem like a radical shift on the surface, it is huge. The reason why Ang Lee did it this way is obvious: he obviously did no research, and thus had to use his own world to put the Hulk in. However, in so doing, he gave up, essentially for free, the greatest advantage that the maker of a comic book movie enjoys: free script and product research. The hulk has been around for 40+ years, and has had a long history, there have been some great stories and some clunkers, we know what works and what doesn't, what you can do with the character and what you can't, the product has been tested. That product research is readily available and essentially free for the asking. Watch Spiderman and Batman Begins again, Nolan and Rami patched together a lot of both movies as a "greatest hits" of the comics.

Ask yourself this question: suppose Sam Rami had done the Spiderman movie a few years ago, and suppose he had wanted to go in a totally new direction: say Rami decided the character didn't have enough emotional depths, so to actually witness Uncle Ben's murder, and to also have a little kid brother, and to be a more emotionally angsty superhero, how do you think that would have played out? Spiderman wouldn't have been the smash hit it was, here's the dirty little secret of that comic book (that rami nailed perfectly):

Nobody cares about Spiderman, he's just a mask, people read Spiderman comics to find out what happens to Peter Parker, not to find out how Spiderman beats the bad guy.

It's the same appeal that fuels Yorrick Brown and Ted Kord, Peter Parker is the everyman, he's the kid everyone knows (or is), that's why you care so much about him. Without that, Spiderman is just another costumed superhero, no different than a million others, and his movie is a flop.

Batman? Batman is the polar opposite of Peter Parker, I knew Christopher Nolan "got" Batman in that last scene at Wayne Manor when Rachel Dawes told Bruce about his "mask". Here's the dirty little secret of Batman:

There is no Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is just a mask that Batman wears when he needs to go out in public as a normal person. Bruce Wayne died on that night in crime alley when his parents were gunned down by Joe Chill, from that day forward, there has been only Batman.

Christopher Nolan got it, Sam Rami gets it, Ang Lee? Not so much. He changed around the Hulk, took away the essence of what made the character a comic book staple. That's my beef with the Hulk movie.

[TheReaper]

I won't argue with you on that point, you seem very well versed in comic book knowledge.
My question is, do you think that the mistakes made in the first movie makes it impossible to pull off a really good sequel?
I did dislike that they merged his father and the absorbing man as one character, and there's probably plenty of inconsistencys with the series that I didn't pick up on.

[Patrick Bateman]

I understand the point you are making Soda, but I suppose I just have a softspot for this film. Ang Lee's HULK was a truly unique (although completely from Ang Lee's own personal perspective) ride into the subconscious of one Bruce Banner.


Personally, I agree that Ang Lee tried something different than Raimi at the time, and decided to put The Hulk into the "real" world, as opposed to a "made up" world, or a world that was versed in the "Marvel Universe". Now with that being said, Ang Lee also did not let anyone forget for a minute that this version of The Hulk was indeed a comic book put up there on the big screen. Which is evident by the frequent use of dual shots, multiple panels of action, and so forth. Which has a certain novelty of not really having been done before. Or at least this creatively.


One thing I must say Ang Lee conveyed right, is that he fully accomplished setting up Bruce Banner as a man with not only bottled up emotions, but also defined him as man with deeply repressed rage. Lee spent basically an hour getting the audience to believe that there could be a monster lurking in Banner, and when he finally does shows up, it is truly a great payoff. As The Hulk screams out in uncontrollable anger, literally smashing everything in his way. I must also add that I enjoyed seeing Bruce's relationship with Betty Ross explored within the first 20 minutes, and by doing this, Lee left us with a pair of two three-dimensional, fully fleshed out characters. Throw in Betty's father General Ross, who is played by Sam Elliot as so straight-edged that by shaking his hand you are extremely likely to recieve a paper cut, and you have a very interesting trinity of characters that basically do a good job overshadowing every other character in the film. Which wasnt particularly a good thing. But was a little bit expected, as this was indeed some awesome casting.


And although there were some moments in the film that I quite enjoyed, there are some very weak moments as well. The conflict between the Banner's near the end of the film definately comes to mind. As it's played by Bana and Nolte with the most gravest voices, and comes across as extremely melodramatic, and even laughable at times.


Bottom Line: Despite the film's apparant flaws, I liked this flick. I enjoyed it a great deal. But I believe it ultimately proved disappointing to a number the films target audience, and to hardcore comic book fans with Ang Lee's personal take on The Hulk, as well as the film's sheer disregard to much of The Hulk's history that has made him endure for the better part of 40 years. Still, I enjoy it for what it is. And especially for the fact that it did not turn out to be just another summer popcorn flick with wall-to-wall action as it was no doubt assumed to be, but rather a film that actually had some depth to it. Definately not THE definitive HULK movie (especially if you are a comic book reader), but it was, I felt, a very serious, and welcomed take on a Marvel Comics character that has been around for 40+ years despite the fact that it wasnt exactly true to the original source.

[soda]

you know what patrick? That last post, in a nutshell, is why I like talking to you so much, I think it's cool that two people can have such a vastly different perspective on something, and that both of us can be valid.

My problem with the Hulk though is precisely the points that you were willing to live with: that Ang Lee pulled the Hulk out of the marvel universe, proper, and that he ignored much of the Hulk's history. I've said over and over on this thread that Ang Lee has probably never read a Hulk comic in his life, you know what I find even more frightening? The idea that what he actually did was read a few comics, and said "yeah, this is stupid, I'm going to go my own way."

To me, as a fan, you can't separate the Hulk from the marvel U, anymore than you can separate Catwoman from Gotham City and the DCU (and we all remember how that played out), the context of the marvel U has helped to define so much of what the Hulk was about over the years, to remove that context, well, you lose something. You also can't throw out the Hulk's long history as a comic book icon, I think that, at some level, every director who takes on a comic book project has signed an implied social contract: you gain advantages from making this movie, but there are also constraints imposed upon you as the guardian of folklore, you can't do just anything you want with these characters. The directors who have ignored this social contract, who used the name of the character and who changed everything else (constantine, Catwoman) didn't do so well at the box office. Films like Hulk and Fantastic four were more faithfull, but they both finished in the 150 million dollar range. The most faithfull adaptations, made by directors who fully understood the limits imposed by the social contract, did the best financially. I don't think that's a coincidence.

Maybe there is some snobbery on my part involved in what I'm about to say next, but I'll say it anyway: I don't trust Hollywood directors to re-invent comic book characters (exception: Joss Wheddon, but he's not a "hollywood director", he's a comic book writer, in his heart of hearts, and he's moon-lighting as a hollywood director. wheddon can do whatever the hell he wants.) Why? statistics. As a comic book fan, I've bore witness to many, many, many reboots, revamps, re-imagings and "we're going to shake up and change the worlds", there seems to be one on the horizon every week. Out of all the ones I've seen come and go, do you know what percentage stuck? I would estimate it's roughly one percent (I know it's higher than that, but not appreciably so, so one percent is close enough of a ball park figure). Do you know what else I've noticed about these revamps? You can tell what the odds are of one failing or passing based upon the name of the writer who wrote it. revamps done by superstar creators stick at a much higher percentage than revamps done by other people, that's what makes the superstar creators superstars. Here's my "list of people who are allowed to revamp":

Geoff Johns (what he did for the Flash villians is nothing short of an astonishing re-invention)
Gail Simmone (birds of prey, catman, deadshot and the secret six)
Grant Morrison (anyone who can make clarion the witchboy cool....)
Ed Brubaker (what he's done for captain america is just amazing)
Paul Dini / bruce timm (batman TAS is a definitive batman revamp)
Brian K. Vaughn
Bendis (ultimate spiderman and daredevil. I don't like his work, but I gotta admit, the man has talent.)


and back in the day:
Frank Miller - DKR and year one totally reinvented Batman, and Miller totally re-invented daredevil.
marv wolfmann (his new teen titans was so good, it sold more copies than uncanny x-men)
John Brynes (in the 70s with x-men and the 80s with Man of steel, not anymore. Today, he's the most retconned writer in the industry)

There are some other guys (for Hulk, Peter David, and I'll buy anything by Alex Ross), but this is a pretty good list. If a Hollywood director gets one of these guys to revamp a character, then I might be on board for it, because I know the odds of success are better, but if just anybody does the revamp? Sorry, but the odds say you'll fall flat on your face. I've never understood the movie industry in this respect: you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to make a feature film about a comic book character, how much hubris does it require to A) ignore free product research on that character and B) ignore the work of experts in the industry who have done years of work with the character? Let me ask you this: how in the fu*& do you spend hundreds of millions of dollars making a Hulk movie and not once ask Peter David for input on the script? The greatest living Hulk writer on the planet is available, and you could get him to write your script, and it would be killer, and people would dig your movie, and you say no? I'm sorry, but this is low hanging fruit, this seems to me like an obvious step to take. It strikes me as so idiotic, but then again, I'm just a fan, I'm not hollywood. If I was making a Hulk movie, and it was my livlihood on the line, the first thing I'm doing is loading a dump truck with money, driving to Peter David's house and begging him to write the script for my movie.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally posted by soda
you know what patrick? That last post, in a nutshell, is why I like talking to you so much, I think it's cool that two people can have such a vastly different perspective on something, and that both of us can be valid.

I appreciate that, mate. And likewise. :cool:

John Brynes (in the 70s with x-men and the 80s with Man of steel, not anymore. Today, he's the most retconned writer in the industry)

Thats for sure. I'm not sure what Marvel was thinking when they hired Byrne to retcon Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's work on Spider-Man with his Chapter One series, I suppose Marvel's intentions were in the right place. But boy, the execution on Byrne's part was piss poor to say the very least.

Let me ask you this: how in the fu*& do you spend hundreds of millions of dollars making a Hulk movie and not once ask Peter David for input on the script? The greatest living Hulk writer on the planet is available, and you could get him to write your script, and it would be killer, and people would dig your movie, and you say no? I'm sorry, but this is low hanging fruit, this seems to me like an obvious step to take. It strikes me as so idiotic, but then again, I'm just a fan, I'm not hollywood. If I was making a Hulk movie, and it was my livlihood on the line, the first thing I'm doing is loading a dump truck with money, driving to Peter David's house and begging him to write the script for my movie.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there, Soda.
As I have mentioned eariler in this thread, and if you havent already checked it out Soda, do check out the June 2006 issue of Comics Buyer's Guide as there is a 4 page article on Peter David's HULK script that was unfortunately summarily rejected.

Here's a sample:
__________________________________________________ ________
1. Open with a black screen, over which we run the credtis. And, as we run them, we hear a slow, steady, double lumbering pounding. Soft and steady, at first, but becoming progressively louder and progressively faster. We think that it's a heartbeat. And then the blackness, as we pull back, is revealed to be the pupil of an eye. An eye in the head of Rick Jones. He is seated on a floor, his back against a large, steel vault door. His eyes are wide open, and we see that he is clearly petrified. And we realize that the thudding is not a heart (although it might have been Rick's own heart pounding), but in fact, two massive fists pounding rhythmically on the door.
Finally Rick can't take it anymore.
"Stop iiiiitttttt!" screams Rick, slamming his hands over his ears.
Stoppppp ittttttttt!"
And the slamming stops. Rick can't believe it. He approaches slow, cautiously. Then he whispers, "Bruce?"
And then there is a massive thud, sending Rick jumping back with a startled yell. Then, he gapes in astonishment and slowly moves toward the door, to reveal an outward indentation has been made.
The lines suggest the fingers of an immense fist.
Moments later, Rick is seated in front of a video camera, recording time and date, explaining Bruce has told him to make a video record of everything that happened. Rick looks back at the indentation and then says, "Just in case this tape is found and none of us lives long enough to fill the gaps ... heres everything from the start ..."
__________________________________________________ ________

Whew. Anyways, Peter David mentions that this opening should enable us to hit the ground running. His idea would have to cut back to Rick every now and then, to keep both him and The Hulk as a constant presence in the film. Even when doing character development on the others. The main villian of David's script would have been The Leader, and the action was, of necessity, modest. As the script was written years ago, and when CGI didnt exist as such back then. Still, I thought that was a pretty cool way to start a HULK movie. :)

[soda]

Originally posted by Patrick Bateman

Thats for sure. I'm not sure what Marvel was thinking when they hired Byrne to retcon Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's work on Spider-Man with his Chapter One series, I suppose Marvel's intentions were in the right place. But boy, the execution on Byrne's part was piss poor to say the very least.



Don't know what Marvel was thinking with that one. Remember his Doom Patrol reboot? That was so poorly executed, it bordered on hysterical. DC had this whole plan to incorporate the new Byrnes Doom Patrol into the DCU, and they had to scrap the entire thing a few issues in because the series was so awful. Man, I felt bad for the guy, Brynes is a comic legend, but he's clearly lost it. My comic book store guy is an older fan, and he remembers the Brynes hey-day, when anything by John Brynes was gold, and he still thinks Brynes is that writer, and it's just that the industry has caught up and passed. Uh, no, you read dark Phoenix and you read Man of Steel, and they still hold up, today, Brynes is clearly not the man he was.

As for the Hulk script, I read a summary of the Peter David script a while ago, but I never found a copy of the actual thing. Not sure if I read the same review you did (I'll look for the review you cited), as for my thoughts on what I read, yeah, that's what I liked about the Peter David script: it hit the ground running. Great comic books are like that, take a look at Brubaker's Captain America, or Palmonti and Gray's Jonah Hex, those books don't waste any time, they give it to the reader, page after page, panel after panel, right away. I could tell that both of those books were going to be great ones from issue #1, I picked up the first issue, and bang!, hit the ground running, that was great, when dose the next one come out? There's not a single issue of either book that sucks, there's no "oh, I'll give it a couple of issues and see where it's going", there's no wasted effort, no wasted motion, nothing but classic Jonah Hex and classic Captain America, the way both characters should be.

That's Peter David Hulk, that's the "planet Hulk" maxi-series I'm reading right now. Planet Hulk was the best Hulk idea Marvel's had in 40 years, "hey, let's shoot the Hulk off into outer space, and the plot of the book can be that he lands on a planet where everyone is stronger than he is. yeah, that's great!" Simple? Yes. Crude? oh, hell yes. Incredibly effective? Yup. Plus, as an added bonus, you get this aura of suspense hanging over every panel, you know that Reed Richards is the guy responsible for this plan to get rid of the Hulk, Richards even dose the dumbest thing he's done in his life and appears on the video explaining it to the Hulk (you're the smartest man in the world, surely you know how comic books work, and you know that the Hulk will be back, they always come back, so why wouldn't you photoshop the leader or abomination into the video in your place, you could even use your voice, and the Hulk would never know the difference. Just a thought.) As much as you're digging planet hulk, you just want to get to that panel where you see the Hulk crash landing back on earth, and Reed Richards hiding under the furthest rock he can find in the back of the negative zone. Yeah, I'll take on Galactus any day of the week, but a pissed off Hulk? No thanks.

I really dug Peter David's take on the character, the whole thing with the Hulk's personality being Banner's repressed sub-conscious just made so much sense to me. I didn't think Ang Lee made a bad film, it just wasn't anywhere close to the film he could have made with a Peter David script. People who are into comics talk all the time about "decompressed storytelling", Batman Begins is decompression at it's finest, you have to wait for the pay-off, but it's worth it. Ang Lee's Hulk, IMHO, is decompression executed poorly, or rather, executed without a proper understanding of the character. I would have preferred a Peter David compressed storyline for the Hulk.

[The Postmaster General]

Bateman - Thanks for all the reading. I'm not up to speed with much of Hulk I was always a moderate comic fan, knowing the most about Batman's mythology. My bag was always Groo, Mad, and limited edition comics or one's starting new characters. Your information was very useful. Thanks again. You're right about SHEID being confusing, but I think in a straight up comic adaption they could have spelled that out and not made it that bad.

That being said, I think one thing people don't say too much is that HULK should probably be looked at as a movie adapted from a comic book, then adapted into an Ang Lee movie. His movies are all very distinct, despite him covering so many genres; they all have qualities that could be described as people have described HULK - basically boring.

I liked the movie, but do agree with what Avi Arad stated - people wanted more popcorn. Ang Lee's movies, even for non-popcorn standards remain described as art house. Nolan who is arguably films in a more action/thriller-oriented style, was perfect for the Batman people expected. Ang Lee is pretty thematic and dramatic, mostly wanting people to interpret or to find poignancy in his films - at least that's what I get from hearing him talk, the films have a message he wants you to get.

That was one of the things I liked about Hulk; it was just sort of a strange interpretation of a comic book story. That made it interesting unto itself. Even though Batman was kind of a Tim Buron movie staring Jack Nicholson, it was still very accessable and 'popcorn'. So I know other directors have adapted comics like this - most of them really - it's just that Ang Lee was an unusual match. I thought he did well making a dramatic film though. And just to note - the use of split screen was really cool, and one of those things I saw and questioned why I'd never seen the framing used before. He gets kudos from me on that one - cool style element.

I'd like to see another version of the Hulk, more like the one you would have expected back a few years. That would be cool to, but I don't know about calling it a sequel or that it will be the non-smash the first one was. Who knows though.

[Slim_JGE]

NOOOOOOOO! Hulk was AWFUL.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Slim_JGE
NOOOOOOOO! Hulk was AWFUL.

It doesn't seem like you even read the article.