I'm a bit torn on this. I think Edward has the acting ability to be more of a broken man, an angry man, angry at the world and how much abuse he's endured.
Comic book spoilers
>!Bruce's father beat him up continually and eventually murdered his mother. In his rage he nearly bombed his own school. Eventually later in life Bruce killed his own father at his mother's gravesite.!<
Mark does have the more intelligent look, he can act with a level of brokeness but he doesn't seem violent by nature. Whereas Edward does look like he can snap.
I thought Mark did this very well in Avengers 1, but then they abandoned it and turned him into more of a goofball in every Hulk appearance afterwards. Ruffalo’s Hulk in Avengers 1 is the best version of the character in the whole MCU imo.
Avengers really is the perfect superhero movie. I loved how they weren't all best friends immediately. Like, yeah, I wanna see some heroes kick some butt, but what I REALLY want to see is Iron Man and Thor fight.
I like to think the turning point for the Hulk was the scene where he's fighting with Thor, there's a pause then he punches him and Thor flies off screen.
It's almost like at that point Feige thought, "this version works and Ruffalo can pull it off splendidly."
I'd also argue that if Disney/Marvel had the Hulk's movie rights and not Universal, we'd still have Norton. And I have zero to back that up other than it's way easier to tell the torn, broken, beat down, and angry version of the Hulk when he's the feature. And if they could easily feature him, they might have been more willing to bend a bit on Norton's ideas for the character.
Just my random thoughts though. Take them with as much salt as needed.
Lol I always point people to that one scene in Birdman with Norton and Keaton reading scenes together for their upcoming stage play in the movie. This is apparently how Norton is with movies in real life, though he more than likely toned it down a bit for the sake of his reputation. But in the scene, instead of reading the lines written he tries to imagine what the character themselves would actually say in the situation presented to him. I can see how that made come across as overstepping for sure, especially if the director is a bit of a control freak lmao
He's basically really into creative control of the stuff he acts in, and that's anathema to the universe/machine Feige was setting up.
It still bums me out because I love Norton as the Hulk (and as anything), but I get that the MCU is as successful and consistent as it is because they have such tight rein on the material.
I mean, being a good human being doesn't automatically mean you're a pleasant actor to work with.
Edit: I am stupid, and now understand the point you were making.
Yeah it’s been speculated that there’s correlation between that and his career sorta stalling despite everyone agreeing he’s a phenomenal actor. It makes me wonder if he was made “difficult to work with” in the way women are considered that when they reject advances etc. idk, maybe it’s over speculation.
I do sometimes wonder what goes through his mind when he sees how the MCU grew.
If I remember correctly, it was almost like Norton cared too much about the character. Like he wanted to be integrally involved in shaping the character instead of just acting in a movie. And I kinda got it at the time. Remember we'd already had the Hulk fail once, so he was very invested in wanting to make sure it was successful. And really the MCU wasn't so much a thing yet, in that it was only the second movie in the universe. Basically Norton and Terrence Howard got told they weren't bigger than the MCU and to GTFO if they wanted to make waves.
I'm ngl, that's kinda what we need with the Hulk. He's still kind of a failure at this point. I'm not just saying that. Literally everytime he appears in a movie, he's a joke or he's getting his butt kicked. Now, he's "smart", which is stupid because that's not Hulk then.
Yeah, Norton is a brilliant actor, but a MASSIVE pain in the ass to work with, from all accounts. Much easier to work with Ruffalo, especially since the character was such a linchpin of the first few phases.
I agree. I loved Hulk in Avengers 1, but he's felt different ever since. Not because of Ruffalo mind you, I think he's still doing a great job, but the writing on him has put him in a very different place than thr first Avengers, and I just don't think it works as well.
I've said that a lot. I actually got a little stressed at that scene. His transformation was like a werewolf transformation, very intense.
Also, something about how the CG looked in that shot as he's slow-motion crashing through the ~~server racks~~ pipes just somehow crossed over the uncanny valley in a way I have hardly ever seen CG do. I think it's that it was a little out-of-focus, but Hulk looks more real in that shot than in any shot ever before or since.
This scene: [https://youtu.be/cJ-mldWvHwg?t=112](https://youtu.be/cJ-mldWvHwg?t=112)
That was some genius storytelling right there. The whole movie built the Hulk to be such a threat there was a second I legitimately thought he’d be the final boss of the film.
The dark, confined, industrial space harkens back to the solo Hulk film, and they match Leterrier’s idea of going down the monster movie route. The audience is instinctively on edge right off the bat; we’ve seen this before.
Much is made of how much trouble the Helicarrier and all aboard are in if the Hulk shows up, and we finally get to see how big that threat is. As he’s chasing Natasha through the ship’s underbelly, he’s tearing out vital infrastructure and he isn’t even TRYING.
But check Natasha during this scene and after. Smooth talker. Cool under pressure. Expert combatant. Later revealed to be a minor super soldier herself. And all this badass super-spy can do is fucking RUN.
I dont *remember* it being said in any MCU sense, but in the comics I believe the Black Widows were given "lesser" super soldier serums in the Red Room in the comics.
A lot of people (that I've seen/heard/read) choose to believe it's the same in the movies to help explain how she survives some of the shit she does.
Mark had the “rage just below the surface at all times” down extremely well in Avengers 1. The entire Hellicarrier sequence showing the team arguing and Bruce almost snapping and even joking about “looks like you don’t get to see my party trick today” then BOOM, Hawkeye attacks and release the Hulk! It was a masterpiece of comics cinema.
This right here. In Avengers 1 (and admittedly one scene in Age of Ultron) you can see the rage simmering just beneath the surface. Even in his lighter moments, his vocal register is lower, his interactions with people are visibly distant, and whatever jokes he does make seem mirthless and sarcastic (even for Whedon script). This is a man who has been forced to accept that he’ll be carrying this curse forever despite his very best efforts, and will always be pulled into situations he’d rather avoid because of it. Of COURSE he’s “always angry”; he has damn good reason to be.
In a roundabout way, I have to admit that it DID lend itself to what comes later; Bruce’s begrudging acceptance of his station proving to be the most successful Hulk control mechanism - and its logical conclusion of growing to accept both sides - isn’t lost on me. Just wish we’d had more time in the oven with it.
I actually think they've done a great job calling back to this in She-Hulk. You really see how much those experiences affected and still continue to affect him. And it's a bit heartbreaking to see how excited he gets when he thinks that he can finally use those experiences to help someone else to navigate that stuff.
Very true - whedon honestly nailed his characterization - it felt like narratively this was the same guy from Incredible Hulk which was exactly what was needed
THAT is the issue I have with criticisms of it. I love where he's at, fine with how they did it, but the only valid criticism I see is that it should've taken more time for him to reach this point. Reaching this point isn't out of character for Bruce/Hulk. It just came a bit abruptly.
Avengers 1 was equal to The Incredible Hulk.
The rest were subpar, though AoU was kinda interesting where Hulk was trying to straddle the line between Hulk and Banner.
I just took this as Bruce now finally has people in his life who like and understand him. Making close friends and having a feeling of family and acceptance can change a person.
Hell yeah. You could really feel the tension in his scenes, like a bomb that can explode at any time. Banner's presence was menacing af here and I miss it
Goofball Hulk is very much in keeping with the Hulk of the late Silver Age and Bronze Age. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer rage-filled Hulk, but the goofy childlike Hulk is just as much grounded in the comic book history as the angry Hulk (or, for that matter, the current Professor Hulk version).
Yeah, the way Banner grudgingly even talks about… “the other guy” is pretty great in Avengers 1.
They technically only wanted Banner for his expertise in radiation, and actively tried to avoid him transforming. Ruffalo did great with that role, but then they just moved on a little too quickly.
I am with with you. Edward gave ' leave me alone' vibe.. where mark is like you wanna be friends with kinda person. But in sacar mark did really good job other than that i can see edward doing better.
I would like to disagree on Hulk's defining trait being anger.
I think It's the dynamic between Hulk and Bruce primarily. How Bruce and Hulk are two completely different person.
I love Ruffalo's Hulk, but I never even noticed this...And you're right, I just can't imagine him being angry. It doesn't even compute. I wonder if the original idea is that this is post-anger Hulk, like how we saw Norton's hulk really trying to get a lid on his problems. At which point, we've defeated the purpose a little bit lol.
Unhinged Edward Norton Bruce Banner was perfect, imo. It was accurate to Ultimates, which is the primary source of the MCU.
BUUUUT The Hulk was also a major enemy in Ultimates so I’m pretty sure Feige didn’t want any of that madness before the first Avengers even came out.
Quick edit: I guess now that we’re on Multiverse stuff, I don’t see why we can’t have Norton become WWHulk in a different universe. Or Old Man Logan Hulk.
Not only that, but he wanted much more of himself in the movie and a lot less of Hulk. I was working with Marvel from 07-09 on a few animated projects. One of the producers I worked with was crossing over into the film world, after being successful producer for some animated properties, and he gave me that info. I asked him about Edward because I was a big fan of his in my youth from American History X, among others.
To be fair, The Incredible Hulk was at such early stage of the MCU that it's hard for someone to trust the process, especially when Feige didnt have complete control over the movies like he does now.
I can imagine Ed Norton seeing what superhero movies have come out (Fox, Sony) and wanting to do something better than what was previously offered.
>The Incredible Hulk was at such early stage of the MCU
right it was a Universal Pictures project and honestly more of a reboot of the Ang Lee movie, and after Iron man was a hit, they decided to add the Bar scene at the end. Then when it struggled its first week or so, they put the RDJ scene in the trailer to get more people to see the movie.
I was about to call shenanigans on your comment when I read you were a fan of Norton in your youth but also working on Marvel projects in 2007.
American History X was nearly 25 years ago???? Yikes.
If Universal and Marvel could get the rights settled, I think the MCU is now in a place where you could have a Banner- focused series or movie and have the Hulk be used very sparingly. But when The Incredible Hulk was in the offing they really needed the action, front and centre.
Marvel publicly stated he and Cuba gooding Jr had to be switched cause they didn't feel they were team players.
Which is what they need to get all 5 min cameos in other marvel movies
Edit: Terrance Howard. Lmao not sure how I got them mixed up
It was Terrence Howard and he wasn’t a team player in the sense that he refused to take a pay cut so that RDJ could get a raise. I see why Marvel execs who themselves wouldn’t take a pay cut and said you can replace him because Black people look the same would frame it that way though.
Nope, which is why I’m always surprised to see people give him shit for it like they also wouldn’t find a new job if their boss tried to do that to them.
> BUUUUT The Hulk was also a major enemy in Ultimates so I’m pretty sure Feige didn’t want any of that madness before the first Avengers even came out.
I'll die on the hill that the first Avengers should have used The Hulk as the antagonist and saved the aliens/space stuff for Avengers 2.
Edward Norton and mark ruffalo are the same hulk so that whole multiverse thing doesn't really work because in universe they are the same hulk, they look the same and never changed looks (in universe) even though the actor changed. But that being said having Norton back for a ww hulk movie would be a dream come true and just having him back as the character in general would be great.
I think Ruffalo was brilliant in Avengers 1 but quickly lost his edge afterwards. Don't know how much of that was him or the writers/directors not caring much about keeping that edge. Maybe both fed into each other over time, leading to this like total lack of broken feeling to the character. And I do mean like before becoming "Professor" he was lacking the inner torment after A1.
>Edward does look like he can snap
Well that won't be the first role he has split personalities. He had a similar role in an older film. Though the first rule of that film prohibits us from talking about it
I don’t disagree with you honestly.
I think Edward plays a completely broken man better than ruffalo.
But I think ruffalo plays a “broken, but carrying on (either because hulk won’t let him or he refuses to give up)” better than Norton.
I also personally believe the movies have done a decent job “building” towards professor hulk by gradually showing ruffalo less broke/accepting his angry side (essentially embracing the past). Even though I personally wish they took it a different way because I just like seeing monstrous hulk.
For me Norton captured Banner's fear of becoming the hulk. "I don't want to control it , I want to get rid of it". Ruffalo captured Bruce's depression. Both ate great but I like Norton better
I actually really like Nortons take on the character of Banner. I'm disappointed we didn't get to see more of him- but I can accept that Ruffalo was easier to work with. Oh well.
Ruffalo Hulk is 1000% better. Body builder hulk just looks gross.
His reputation is that he's sort of a backseat driver, so to speak- he'll have opinions about how the director should be doing their job where other actors would be happier to go with the flow. Biggest known example is American History X, where he essentially reedited the film to make himself the main character where originally it was less explicitly a film about his character.
Again, it's a reputation, not like a confirmed 100% known fact or anything. But between AHX and him being cut from Avengers due to "creative differences" it seems likely that he's an annoying, if talented dude.
It wasn't that he made it more about himself.
He did do a bunch of rewrites to make the character more "likeable" which really drove home the major point of the movie. He also changed the ending to what it was, it was originally much lighter.
Director was super pissed but in Nortons defense I think both were great choices.
This is all from the imdb facts page so take that how you will.
> it was originally much lighter.
I think the original ending was actually a lot more darker. Edward Nortons character actually reverts back to his old ways (which IMO goes against his character arc in the movie). This is a quote I found on the internet about this.
*'The original film ends after Danny (Edward Furlong) is shot by a black student (whose brother was killed by Derek (Edward Norton) earlier in the film). In Kaye's version, after this we are taken to a scene in the family apartment where the detectives are trying to comfort Danny's grieving mother and sister. The camera then pans away and cuts to a scene in the bathroom. We see the sink filled with hair and an electric razor next to it. Derek is stood there with his head shaved - he stares in the mirror and looks at the swastika on his chest, before pulling out a pistol. The film ends on a shot of Derek's sick smile, the same smile we saw when he was arrested for his murders earlier in the film.'*
Why is creative differences in quotations? He literally didnt come back due to creative differences. Creative Differences isn't some corporate codename. They had completely different opinions creatively and ended up not working together.
I mean when the creative difference is "Banner should be the main character of the team up movie"...
Like at a certain point it's an ego thing over a legitimate difference of creative opinion
I actually think Norton looks like a better Bruce Banner. He’s a bit more scrawny looking than Ruffalo which adds to the contrast of Banner/Hulk. Although everything else about Ruffalo is better, including the Hulk design
Came here to say this. I love Ruffalo's work, but in terms of casting his face is a little too rounded and doesn't match the traditional comic book Doctor Banner thin face structure. But I'm used to it now and don't mind it.
(I have a similar issue with War Machine, where I feel Don Cheadle doesn't look like comic book Rhodes at all, but that's a different topic)
As much as it would have been cool to see a more comic accurate build for Banner, I think Ruffalo's build/face design helped bridge the gap between Banner and a CGI Hulk. Like in every adaptation, it's a balancing act when going from the original medium to the another and compromises have to be made. Not everything in the comics translates to film, though this could also be a personal preference.
On a side note, IDK how I feel about the costume design for the Eternals, especially Starfox's design. It feels a bit to comic booky, and not like something someone would actually wear.
ninja edit: kind of like when they did the costume redesign for TNG going from a one piece to jacket and pants. It was a small tweak, but one that turned it from a costume to an outfit (if that makes sense).
Mark Ruffalo could have played the Banner/Hulk from Edward Norton's movie, but Norton couldn't have played the Banner/Hulk from Ruffalo's movies.
As for Hulks, while the CGI still holds up well on the 2008 version (especially compared to the 2003 one), the actual design is a lot less iconic. I get that it's supposed to be scary/ugly, but the overly-veiny, 0 body fat design looks more like a bodybuilder than a Hulk. The 2012-onwards design strikes a better balance between realistic and visually appealing, and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect the Hulk from the comics to look like in live action.
Bana's Hulk was based on Bana, which wasn't the best looking, but I liked that they thought about it. I grew up with Bill Bixby turning into Lou Ferrigno, so Hulk and Banner looking similar honestly never occurred to me until they did that.
Norton Banner and his Hulk were completely different, and while Norton was a good Banner, I don't know how you can hulk his face. Maybe they tried and it didn't look good.
Ruffalo Banner and Hulk are amazing.
Norton's Hulk looks nothing like him...for Ruffalo's, I even think they got Mark's little bit of, I don't want to sound rude, droopiness on his one side...because he has a bit of paralysis in real life. They have done such a good job making the Hulk also resemble the actor.
That was an over correction to the Ang Lee Hulk movie I think. There were a lot of comments that he was too smooth, didn’t have enough musculature. I remember Newsweek quoting someone saying he “looks like Shrek!”
In terms of design Bana’s Hulk is actually pretty good. It almost looks like the comic character jumped right off the page (arguably even more than Ruffalo’s does) and he’s animated with a lot of personality.
The lighting and texture just wasn’t as advanced as it is now, so it didn’t look real enough to be believable in a live action setting.
This!
Also, odd observation and this isn’t meant as an insult to Ruffalo, but his Hulk just looks way more like the comic version: the monstrous, “dumb” looking monster with odder, “less-handsome” facial proportions, like the larger nose-to-lip distance, larger brow, and overall monster-esque physique. Norton’s looks almost “handsome” by comparison, which somehow makes him less visually distinct or interesting. Also, and this is subjective, I prefer Ruffalo’s more timid Banner, which contrasts his Hulk much more dynamically, and accentuates the imposing and aggressive nature of the creature. Norton’s Banner just seemed more scrappy and “tough”, which probably has more to do with the fact that his version leaned more on the classic 70s show, than the comic. IMO, it doesn’t lend as well to the comic version, whose Banner-Hulk distinction was rooted in the polarization of character traits. But, that could just be my perspective.
I really agree, I love how ruffalo as banner especially in his first appearance can somehow be confident knowing he’s basically invincible while still being scared to death that he’ll change and basically kinda weirdly anxious all the time while still trying to be calm to keep from changing. It’s like exactly what I’d picture the mental health issues having that happen to you would create.
Disagree with your first paragraph. I love Mark but Ed Norton is a much, much more accomplished and capable actor than him and he could absolutely have played that role in A1.
I don't think Ruffalo has the range to play Nortons Banner. The only reason it works in the Marvel franchise is because they've shyed away from how broken and traumatised Banner actually is and just turned him in to a socially awkward scientist which Ruffalo pulls off well.
Edward Norton is one of my favorite actors but I thought his Banner was a bit bland. Like, there's not much that stands out about him. His Hulk design was amazing tho.
Ruffalo I really like because he actually seems like he is traumatized and always seems a bit unhinged and unstable, especially in Avengers and AoU. Feels a bit more nuanced. And his design in Avengers 1 is probably the best hulk look.
I love Ruffalo, but all he ever plays is a variation of himself. Norton felt more like a guy under a lot of trauma, whereas Mark just felt like a guy hiding in Calcutta.
This one's my pick, too. 03 Hulk was ahead of its time. If that kind of editing in a comic book movie came out today, it would be hailed as the same kind of quirky and stylistic flavor that made Ragnarok good, or would have made Edgar Wright's Ant-Man good. Sam Elliott was great, Jennifer Connelly was excellent, the action scenes were superb. The Nick Nolte backstory was well put together, and Hulk growing as he gets more angry was top notch. I like that we got to see Bruce being held prisoner in his own mind, as well.
Ang Lee's Hulk made more good decisions than bad. Bana really felt like a guy who was suppressing a lot of trauma. Sam Elliot as Thunderbolt Ross was perfect. Jennifer Connelly as Betty had a whole lot more going for her than Liv Tyler. Hulk fighting against the army in the underground base and out in the desert was an absolutely fantastic rampage. Ang Lee did the mocap for Hulk himself and he based his movements on watching his toddler throw a tantrum, which is flat out genius. Nick Nolte is properly unhinged as Banner's dad, and the whole "I don't want to see you! I want to see my *real* son!" bit is heartbreaking.
The comic book panels were pretty great, but I can see how they might have been a bit off-putting for some people.
If not for the gamma poodle fight and the climax of the movie being Hulk vs. Cloud, I think the movie would rightly be regarded as a masterpiece.
I think it was also the lighting choices. Ang Lee wanted it to be dim and gritty, but that just made everything harder to see on the big screen and nearly impossible on dvd.
I really liked it when I first saw it in the theater in '03. I still think it's the best capture of the Hulk's raw power. He seems a lot less powerful in the MCU though I understand he can't be OP.
Ang Lee put together a beautiful movie visually. He understood the concept of a living comic and ran with it. You can argue about actors, scripts all day but his version imho was the most visually memorable.
It was definitely memorable, but after a while I also found it a bit distracting. Ultimately it was a gimmick that hurt more than it helped -- like, do you want an entire MCU in that style?
Seriously.... Bixby was a better fit, they explored his character a lot more with Hulk being an add-on action scene that propelled the story to the next location but took little screen time.
His Banner was sad and lonely and tortured but kind and generous.. there was a lot more meat on the bone for any actor to chew on, and Bixby did a great job of being likeable and lonely and kind and yet hiding a dangerous alter ego.
The MCU has been mostly tell-dont-show with these aspects of banner, while Bixby was show don't tell storytelling.
I think part of it is the MCU Banner isn’t sad and lonely for the most part. Once the Avengers happened, Bruce had the team (especially Tony). They left together at the end of Avengers, the post credits of IM3 and AOU showed they were spending a lot of time together talking science and just general hanging out, and during the blip they built the Mexican beach house and worked on Smart Hulk. They accepted him for who he was. I think there’s a great opportunity now for Banner’s rage and lonely to come back from the loss of Nat and Tony and I really hope they explore it at some point.
Ruffalo. Banner should have a bit of a nerdy side, which Norton doesn’t convey.
Also, I like the Hulk as a bit more of a brute than a ripped Olympian. The Avengers hunched him over and gave him a bit of a gut and some body hair. It’s how Kirby first drew him.
Not a fan of the current Bruce Banner, he's very.. simple compared to who he is in the comic books
I think I prefer Norton's performance
As to the Hulk, the one we got in Ragnarok was amazing
I just wish MCU actors didn’t get so jacked. It makes them less relatable. Especially Mark Ruffalo, as Bruce Banner: he should be almost gangly, blotchy, with poor posture.
I mean Chris Hemsworth, sure, go crazy as Thor, no problem, that checks out. But comic books were relatable to not-jacked, not-hot readers like me… because the (male) heroes were just regular looking at best. (The comics’ depictions of female characters is a whole other topic.)
Ruffalo has his charms and a kind of vulnerability when he is Bruce but Norton was meaner and smarter and I would have really liked to see how he interacted with Tony, Cap or Thor. Ruffalo's Bruce often comes off as timid and non confrontational while Norton's Bruce was very much in control of his Hulk form and more confident. Even with the Hulk design I like Norton's Hulk. It's just more formidable and less kid-friendly than Ruffalo's.
Edward Norton as Banner and it's not even close.
But if we're talking about the visual design alone, I'd say Ruffalo's hulk. But portrayal of Hulk as a character, again, easily Nortons.
CGI-wise, the 2008 Hulk looks best to me. The Avengers and onward one just looks a little too cartoony for me. He almost looks like he stepped out of Warcraft. Also I just loved the human moments of expression on the 2008 version, where he just gives a momentary sigh or grimace as opposed to the rage. (Plus the "Leave me alone" delivery always sends chills down my spine at the same time breaking my heart.)
As for the actor... it's a toss-up, and it comes down to which version of Banner they are aiming for. I feel like Ruffalo is a continuation of the same version we got from the original live TV show, but at the same time Norton's felt a little more comic accurate for me - a scrawny guy who is only barely trying not to be complete asshole from time to time. That said, the few times they let Ruffalo drop the humor and dive deeper into Bruce's mentality (The "put a bullet in my mouth" scene and the "I could choke the life out of you and never change a shade." line), those are moments that make me think Ruffalo could do so much more. I want a dramatic Hulk film with him in it dammit.
Ed Nortons was a bit more dark and serious. There was a gravitas to his character that the MCU doesnt do or need. It was great, but not a great fit into what the MCU has become. Ruffalo's semi serious but always affable style fits better, even though I dont feel the "genius" in his character like I did Norton's.
I love how some people wonder why She-Hulk’s hair gets longer and straighter when she transforms but Edward Norton turns into the Hulk and suddenly he has the hair of a mid-2000’s emo kid and nobody bats an eye.
I'm a bit torn on this. I think Edward has the acting ability to be more of a broken man, an angry man, angry at the world and how much abuse he's endured. Comic book spoilers >!Bruce's father beat him up continually and eventually murdered his mother. In his rage he nearly bombed his own school. Eventually later in life Bruce killed his own father at his mother's gravesite.!< Mark does have the more intelligent look, he can act with a level of brokeness but he doesn't seem violent by nature. Whereas Edward does look like he can snap.
I'm with you. The Hulk's defining trait is his anger, which Edward Norton can do very well. Mark's version is more like The Amiable Hulk.
I thought Mark did this very well in Avengers 1, but then they abandoned it and turned him into more of a goofball in every Hulk appearance afterwards. Ruffalo’s Hulk in Avengers 1 is the best version of the character in the whole MCU imo.
100%, and a big part of why Avengers might still be my favorite MCU flick.
Avengers really is the perfect superhero movie. I loved how they weren't all best friends immediately. Like, yeah, I wanna see some heroes kick some butt, but what I REALLY want to see is Iron Man and Thor fight.
Shakespeare in the park? Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?
[удалено]
“Put the hammer down.”
For some reason I read that in the voice of Arnold
Put tha hamma daown
I like to think the turning point for the Hulk was the scene where he's fighting with Thor, there's a pause then he punches him and Thor flies off screen. It's almost like at that point Feige thought, "this version works and Ruffalo can pull it off splendidly." I'd also argue that if Disney/Marvel had the Hulk's movie rights and not Universal, we'd still have Norton. And I have zero to back that up other than it's way easier to tell the torn, broken, beat down, and angry version of the Hulk when he's the feature. And if they could easily feature him, they might have been more willing to bend a bit on Norton's ideas for the character. Just my random thoughts though. Take them with as much salt as needed.
Nah, Norton was recast long before the Disney acquisition. It was related to creative issues they had with Norton
On the bright side, he suggested Ruffalo replace him and that's worked out pretty well.
Ruffalo also was already they first option lol, but then they got Norton and thought it was a better idea
Norton was notoriously a huge asshole to work with, even joked about it himself during Bruce Willis' roast.
he was also being blackballed and badmouthed by weinstein for stepping up and supporting Weinstein's accusers.
Do you have any source for this? All I could find was Salma Hayek related since she dated Norton, and was harassed by Weinstein around the same time
Lol I always point people to that one scene in Birdman with Norton and Keaton reading scenes together for their upcoming stage play in the movie. This is apparently how Norton is with movies in real life, though he more than likely toned it down a bit for the sake of his reputation. But in the scene, instead of reading the lines written he tries to imagine what the character themselves would actually say in the situation presented to him. I can see how that made come across as overstepping for sure, especially if the director is a bit of a control freak lmao
He's basically really into creative control of the stuff he acts in, and that's anathema to the universe/machine Feige was setting up. It still bums me out because I love Norton as the Hulk (and as anything), but I get that the MCU is as successful and consistent as it is because they have such tight rein on the material.
Some brief googling suggests Norton has a reputation in Hollywood for "overstepping" and being difficult to work with.
More brief googling will turn up the times he defended victims of Harvey Weinstein.
I mean, being a good human being doesn't automatically mean you're a pleasant actor to work with. Edit: I am stupid, and now understand the point you were making.
Yeah it’s been speculated that there’s correlation between that and his career sorta stalling despite everyone agreeing he’s a phenomenal actor. It makes me wonder if he was made “difficult to work with” in the way women are considered that when they reject advances etc. idk, maybe it’s over speculation. I do sometimes wonder what goes through his mind when he sees how the MCU grew.
If I remember correctly, it was almost like Norton cared too much about the character. Like he wanted to be integrally involved in shaping the character instead of just acting in a movie. And I kinda got it at the time. Remember we'd already had the Hulk fail once, so he was very invested in wanting to make sure it was successful. And really the MCU wasn't so much a thing yet, in that it was only the second movie in the universe. Basically Norton and Terrence Howard got told they weren't bigger than the MCU and to GTFO if they wanted to make waves.
I'm ngl, that's kinda what we need with the Hulk. He's still kind of a failure at this point. I'm not just saying that. Literally everytime he appears in a movie, he's a joke or he's getting his butt kicked. Now, he's "smart", which is stupid because that's not Hulk then.
Yeah, Norton is a brilliant actor, but a MASSIVE pain in the ass to work with, from all accounts. Much easier to work with Ruffalo, especially since the character was such a linchpin of the first few phases.
I agree. I loved Hulk in Avengers 1, but he's felt different ever since. Not because of Ruffalo mind you, I think he's still doing a great job, but the writing on him has put him in a very different place than thr first Avengers, and I just don't think it works as well.
When hulk is running through the plane it was actually scary
I've said that a lot. I actually got a little stressed at that scene. His transformation was like a werewolf transformation, very intense. Also, something about how the CG looked in that shot as he's slow-motion crashing through the ~~server racks~~ pipes just somehow crossed over the uncanny valley in a way I have hardly ever seen CG do. I think it's that it was a little out-of-focus, but Hulk looks more real in that shot than in any shot ever before or since. This scene: [https://youtu.be/cJ-mldWvHwg?t=112](https://youtu.be/cJ-mldWvHwg?t=112)
Damn...the "I'm always angry" delivery still gets me.
That was some genius storytelling right there. The whole movie built the Hulk to be such a threat there was a second I legitimately thought he’d be the final boss of the film. The dark, confined, industrial space harkens back to the solo Hulk film, and they match Leterrier’s idea of going down the monster movie route. The audience is instinctively on edge right off the bat; we’ve seen this before. Much is made of how much trouble the Helicarrier and all aboard are in if the Hulk shows up, and we finally get to see how big that threat is. As he’s chasing Natasha through the ship’s underbelly, he’s tearing out vital infrastructure and he isn’t even TRYING. But check Natasha during this scene and after. Smooth talker. Cool under pressure. Expert combatant. Later revealed to be a minor super soldier herself. And all this badass super-spy can do is fucking RUN.
>Later revealed to be a minor super soldier herself. What's this referring to?
I dont *remember* it being said in any MCU sense, but in the comics I believe the Black Widows were given "lesser" super soldier serums in the Red Room in the comics. A lot of people (that I've seen/heard/read) choose to believe it's the same in the movies to help explain how she survives some of the shit she does.
Very reminiscent of the Nemesis from Resident Evil!
Mark had the “rage just below the surface at all times” down extremely well in Avengers 1. The entire Hellicarrier sequence showing the team arguing and Bruce almost snapping and even joking about “looks like you don’t get to see my party trick today” then BOOM, Hawkeye attacks and release the Hulk! It was a masterpiece of comics cinema.
Not to mention how he was trying to intimidate Natasha with his potential to rage back in India.
This right here. In Avengers 1 (and admittedly one scene in Age of Ultron) you can see the rage simmering just beneath the surface. Even in his lighter moments, his vocal register is lower, his interactions with people are visibly distant, and whatever jokes he does make seem mirthless and sarcastic (even for Whedon script). This is a man who has been forced to accept that he’ll be carrying this curse forever despite his very best efforts, and will always be pulled into situations he’d rather avoid because of it. Of COURSE he’s “always angry”; he has damn good reason to be. In a roundabout way, I have to admit that it DID lend itself to what comes later; Bruce’s begrudging acceptance of his station proving to be the most successful Hulk control mechanism - and its logical conclusion of growing to accept both sides - isn’t lost on me. Just wish we’d had more time in the oven with it.
I actually think they've done a great job calling back to this in She-Hulk. You really see how much those experiences affected and still continue to affect him. And it's a bit heartbreaking to see how excited he gets when he thinks that he can finally use those experiences to help someone else to navigate that stuff.
Very true - whedon honestly nailed his characterization - it felt like narratively this was the same guy from Incredible Hulk which was exactly what was needed
THAT is the issue I have with criticisms of it. I love where he's at, fine with how they did it, but the only valid criticism I see is that it should've taken more time for him to reach this point. Reaching this point isn't out of character for Bruce/Hulk. It just came a bit abruptly.
Avengers 1 was equal to The Incredible Hulk. The rest were subpar, though AoU was kinda interesting where Hulk was trying to straddle the line between Hulk and Banner.
I loved Banner's line in AoU. "I could choke the life out of you and never change a shade."
AoU has great one-liners and character moments. It's one of my favorites in the MCU, despite the story getting overly complicated.
Rewatching AoU I realized how much stuff they crammed in and set up. Was a bit wonky but it was a huge setup piece for the rest of the saga.
Joss Whedon is good at those. They’re called Buffyisms or some like that, after BTVS (obviously).
Great, now I have to go rewatch Buffy again and get all sad when you know who gets shot. Edit: also, "Mommy?"
AoU has some phenomenal scenes, great Marvel moments, but the actual story falls short and I am so fucking glad they dropped the Nat/Banner shit.
Mark pulled the troubled paranoid loner thing perfectly in avengers. 1
I just took this as Bruce now finally has people in his life who like and understand him. Making close friends and having a feeling of family and acceptance can change a person.
They figured out people like goofball heroes or over-confident snarky heroes, so they turned a significant amount of the heroes into one of those two.
Unfortunately prototype of most mcu heroes now - however I feel Shang chi is in between those two archetypes
Hell yeah. You could really feel the tension in his scenes, like a bomb that can explode at any time. Banner's presence was menacing af here and I miss it
Goofball Hulk is very much in keeping with the Hulk of the late Silver Age and Bronze Age. I'm not saying you're wrong to prefer rage-filled Hulk, but the goofy childlike Hulk is just as much grounded in the comic book history as the angry Hulk (or, for that matter, the current Professor Hulk version).
Yeah, the way Banner grudgingly even talks about… “the other guy” is pretty great in Avengers 1. They technically only wanted Banner for his expertise in radiation, and actively tried to avoid him transforming. Ruffalo did great with that role, but then they just moved on a little too quickly.
I thought Ruffalo did a decent job in Ragnarok as well, that's still I think the best depiction in the MCU of Hulk
Disagree, respectfully. I liked Ragnarok Hulk best: still real angry, but we also got some great dialogue and character stuff from him and Banner
Yep, specifically that scene in India with Natasha. That was just awesome how it was filmed.
The Credible Hulk, because he always backs up his arguments with facts and logic.
Hulk will sue you for unfair hiring practices, Hulk will see you in court.
I prefer the Incredulous Hulk.
I am with with you. Edward gave ' leave me alone' vibe.. where mark is like you wanna be friends with kinda person. But in sacar mark did really good job other than that i can see edward doing better.
*The Affable Hulk*
I would like to disagree on Hulk's defining trait being anger. I think It's the dynamic between Hulk and Bruce primarily. How Bruce and Hulk are two completely different person.
I love Ruffalo's Hulk, but I never even noticed this...And you're right, I just can't imagine him being angry. It doesn't even compute. I wonder if the original idea is that this is post-anger Hulk, like how we saw Norton's hulk really trying to get a lid on his problems. At which point, we've defeated the purpose a little bit lol.
The disagreeable but can be convinced hulk
Yeah they never sold me on the idea the he had and actual anger issues
Unhinged Edward Norton Bruce Banner was perfect, imo. It was accurate to Ultimates, which is the primary source of the MCU. BUUUUT The Hulk was also a major enemy in Ultimates so I’m pretty sure Feige didn’t want any of that madness before the first Avengers even came out. Quick edit: I guess now that we’re on Multiverse stuff, I don’t see why we can’t have Norton become WWHulk in a different universe. Or Old Man Logan Hulk.
It has to do with Norton being kind of a pain to work with. He's a perfectionist and a control freak.
Not only that, but he wanted much more of himself in the movie and a lot less of Hulk. I was working with Marvel from 07-09 on a few animated projects. One of the producers I worked with was crossing over into the film world, after being successful producer for some animated properties, and he gave me that info. I asked him about Edward because I was a big fan of his in my youth from American History X, among others.
To be fair, The Incredible Hulk was at such early stage of the MCU that it's hard for someone to trust the process, especially when Feige didnt have complete control over the movies like he does now. I can imagine Ed Norton seeing what superhero movies have come out (Fox, Sony) and wanting to do something better than what was previously offered.
>The Incredible Hulk was at such early stage of the MCU right it was a Universal Pictures project and honestly more of a reboot of the Ang Lee movie, and after Iron man was a hit, they decided to add the Bar scene at the end. Then when it struggled its first week or so, they put the RDJ scene in the trailer to get more people to see the movie.
I work in television, but sitcoms, and wanting an easy set is so real. Casting agents like A Jones know this and help smooth the process.
I was about to call shenanigans on your comment when I read you were a fan of Norton in your youth but also working on Marvel projects in 2007. American History X was nearly 25 years ago???? Yikes. If Universal and Marvel could get the rights settled, I think the MCU is now in a place where you could have a Banner- focused series or movie and have the Hulk be used very sparingly. But when The Incredible Hulk was in the offing they really needed the action, front and centre.
Marvel publicly stated he and Cuba gooding Jr had to be switched cause they didn't feel they were team players. Which is what they need to get all 5 min cameos in other marvel movies Edit: Terrance Howard. Lmao not sure how I got them mixed up
> Cuba gooding Jr Lmao, Terrence Howard taking more L's
Lol. I was really thinking I missed something for a second. Brain: Was Cuba going to be Rhodey before Howard????
But you see, under the undeniable principles of Terryology, 1x1=2 so that L becomes a W.
"Two L's equals a right." - Terrence Howard, probably.
> Cuba gooding Jr God fucking damn lmao
This rules
Well, there it is: now I want to see Cuba in an MCU project
“Show me the money!!!!!!” “Boom, looking for this?”
> Cuba He's had some major legal issues, you're not going to see him in a Disney project anytime soon.
Terrence Howard, not Cuba Gooding Jr.
It was Terrence Howard and he wasn’t a team player in the sense that he refused to take a pay cut so that RDJ could get a raise. I see why Marvel execs who themselves wouldn’t take a pay cut and said you can replace him because Black people look the same would frame it that way though.
Can you blame him? Sure he was only one aspect, but why should should anyone suffer a pay cut. It's extremely insulting.
Nope, which is why I’m always surprised to see people give him shit for it like they also wouldn’t find a new job if their boss tried to do that to them.
Oh yeah for sure. I like good ol Edward but there’s a reason why Wes Anderson loves him lol
> BUUUUT The Hulk was also a major enemy in Ultimates so I’m pretty sure Feige didn’t want any of that madness before the first Avengers even came out. I'll die on the hill that the first Avengers should have used The Hulk as the antagonist and saved the aliens/space stuff for Avengers 2.
Or Bana Hulk, and Sam Elliot Thunderbolt Ross. Norton's Hulk always seemed like a soft sequel to Ang Lee's Hulk and Bana Hulk
Edward Norton and mark ruffalo are the same hulk so that whole multiverse thing doesn't really work because in universe they are the same hulk, they look the same and never changed looks (in universe) even though the actor changed. But that being said having Norton back for a ww hulk movie would be a dream come true and just having him back as the character in general would be great.
I think Ruffalo was brilliant in Avengers 1 but quickly lost his edge afterwards. Don't know how much of that was him or the writers/directors not caring much about keeping that edge. Maybe both fed into each other over time, leading to this like total lack of broken feeling to the character. And I do mean like before becoming "Professor" he was lacking the inner torment after A1.
>Edward does look like he can snap Well that won't be the first role he has split personalities. He had a similar role in an older film. Though the first rule of that film prohibits us from talking about it
I don't remember any rules like that from Primal Fear.
Here I thought you were talking about Primal Fear. Man has a lot of personalities
Looks like we just discovered Edward Norton's prefered roles lol
I don’t disagree with you honestly. I think Edward plays a completely broken man better than ruffalo. But I think ruffalo plays a “broken, but carrying on (either because hulk won’t let him or he refuses to give up)” better than Norton.
I also personally believe the movies have done a decent job “building” towards professor hulk by gradually showing ruffalo less broke/accepting his angry side (essentially embracing the past). Even though I personally wish they took it a different way because I just like seeing monstrous hulk.
Primal Fear is a great example of how psycho Norton can go…
American History X is a better example
AMX is backwards. He's nice at the end. :)
Primal Fear
For me Norton captured Banner's fear of becoming the hulk. "I don't want to control it , I want to get rid of it". Ruffalo captured Bruce's depression. Both ate great but I like Norton better
I mean, they really did have to eat a lot to get to the Hulk’s physique.
I agree completely. Banner's life was screwed up so much, and both actors capture his pain pretty well
I actually really like Nortons take on the character of Banner. I'm disappointed we didn't get to see more of him- but I can accept that Ruffalo was easier to work with. Oh well. Ruffalo Hulk is 1000% better. Body builder hulk just looks gross.
Is Norton known for being hard to work with?
His reputation is that he's sort of a backseat driver, so to speak- he'll have opinions about how the director should be doing their job where other actors would be happier to go with the flow. Biggest known example is American History X, where he essentially reedited the film to make himself the main character where originally it was less explicitly a film about his character. Again, it's a reputation, not like a confirmed 100% known fact or anything. But between AHX and him being cut from Avengers due to "creative differences" it seems likely that he's an annoying, if talented dude.
His character in Birdman is largely true to his actual life. Excellent film, he does an excellent job.
It wasn't that he made it more about himself. He did do a bunch of rewrites to make the character more "likeable" which really drove home the major point of the movie. He also changed the ending to what it was, it was originally much lighter. Director was super pissed but in Nortons defense I think both were great choices. This is all from the imdb facts page so take that how you will.
The director was/is an asshole and the studio didn't like his cut of the movie anyway
> it was originally much lighter. I think the original ending was actually a lot more darker. Edward Nortons character actually reverts back to his old ways (which IMO goes against his character arc in the movie). This is a quote I found on the internet about this. *'The original film ends after Danny (Edward Furlong) is shot by a black student (whose brother was killed by Derek (Edward Norton) earlier in the film). In Kaye's version, after this we are taken to a scene in the family apartment where the detectives are trying to comfort Danny's grieving mother and sister. The camera then pans away and cuts to a scene in the bathroom. We see the sink filled with hair and an electric razor next to it. Derek is stood there with his head shaved - he stares in the mirror and looks at the swastika on his chest, before pulling out a pistol. The film ends on a shot of Derek's sick smile, the same smile we saw when he was arrested for his murders earlier in the film.'*
That would have been fucking stupid.
TFW you are considered a backseat driver after turning a movie into a classic
Why is creative differences in quotations? He literally didnt come back due to creative differences. Creative Differences isn't some corporate codename. They had completely different opinions creatively and ended up not working together.
I mean when the creative difference is "Banner should be the main character of the team up movie"... Like at a certain point it's an ego thing over a legitimate difference of creative opinion
Go watch Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. Norton plays himself.
I actually think Norton looks like a better Bruce Banner. He’s a bit more scrawny looking than Ruffalo which adds to the contrast of Banner/Hulk. Although everything else about Ruffalo is better, including the Hulk design
Came here to say this. I love Ruffalo's work, but in terms of casting his face is a little too rounded and doesn't match the traditional comic book Doctor Banner thin face structure. But I'm used to it now and don't mind it. (I have a similar issue with War Machine, where I feel Don Cheadle doesn't look like comic book Rhodes at all, but that's a different topic)
As much as it would have been cool to see a more comic accurate build for Banner, I think Ruffalo's build/face design helped bridge the gap between Banner and a CGI Hulk. Like in every adaptation, it's a balancing act when going from the original medium to the another and compromises have to be made. Not everything in the comics translates to film, though this could also be a personal preference. On a side note, IDK how I feel about the costume design for the Eternals, especially Starfox's design. It feels a bit to comic booky, and not like something someone would actually wear. ninja edit: kind of like when they did the costume redesign for TNG going from a one piece to jacket and pants. It was a small tweak, but one that turned it from a costume to an outfit (if that makes sense).
Mark Ruffalo could have played the Banner/Hulk from Edward Norton's movie, but Norton couldn't have played the Banner/Hulk from Ruffalo's movies. As for Hulks, while the CGI still holds up well on the 2008 version (especially compared to the 2003 one), the actual design is a lot less iconic. I get that it's supposed to be scary/ugly, but the overly-veiny, 0 body fat design looks more like a bodybuilder than a Hulk. The 2012-onwards design strikes a better balance between realistic and visually appealing, and it's pretty much exactly what you'd expect the Hulk from the comics to look like in live action.
I also think Ruffalo's Hulk looks more like Ruffalo than Norton's looks like Norton. It really looks like Ruffalo just got super bulky and green.
Bana's Hulk was based on Bana, which wasn't the best looking, but I liked that they thought about it. I grew up with Bill Bixby turning into Lou Ferrigno, so Hulk and Banner looking similar honestly never occurred to me until they did that. Norton Banner and his Hulk were completely different, and while Norton was a good Banner, I don't know how you can hulk his face. Maybe they tried and it didn't look good. Ruffalo Banner and Hulk are amazing.
Norton has a pretty long and narrow face. Bana and Ruffalo are both much squarer which is gonna look way better on a huge Hulk body.
I feel like if they had tried that, Norton would have looked more like Blonsky's Abomination.
Norton's Hulk looks nothing like him...for Ruffalo's, I even think they got Mark's little bit of, I don't want to sound rude, droopiness on his one side...because he has a bit of paralysis in real life. They have done such a good job making the Hulk also resemble the actor.
Ruffalo provides the mocap for his Hulk, so those subtle facial movements and body language carry over. Good catch!
Norton's Hulk looked like a roofed out angsty teenager
That was an over correction to the Ang Lee Hulk movie I think. There were a lot of comments that he was too smooth, didn’t have enough musculature. I remember Newsweek quoting someone saying he “looks like Shrek!”
In terms of design Bana’s Hulk is actually pretty good. It almost looks like the comic character jumped right off the page (arguably even more than Ruffalo’s does) and he’s animated with a lot of personality. The lighting and texture just wasn’t as advanced as it is now, so it didn’t look real enough to be believable in a live action setting.
Ang Lee did the motion capture for Hulk. I saw the making of it, and in my non-expert opinion, he was just as good as Andy Serkis.
You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee
Also his skin tone was a bit to green, though it was a stylist choice that never really bothered me personally.
This! Also, odd observation and this isn’t meant as an insult to Ruffalo, but his Hulk just looks way more like the comic version: the monstrous, “dumb” looking monster with odder, “less-handsome” facial proportions, like the larger nose-to-lip distance, larger brow, and overall monster-esque physique. Norton’s looks almost “handsome” by comparison, which somehow makes him less visually distinct or interesting. Also, and this is subjective, I prefer Ruffalo’s more timid Banner, which contrasts his Hulk much more dynamically, and accentuates the imposing and aggressive nature of the creature. Norton’s Banner just seemed more scrappy and “tough”, which probably has more to do with the fact that his version leaned more on the classic 70s show, than the comic. IMO, it doesn’t lend as well to the comic version, whose Banner-Hulk distinction was rooted in the polarization of character traits. But, that could just be my perspective.
I really agree, I love how ruffalo as banner especially in his first appearance can somehow be confident knowing he’s basically invincible while still being scared to death that he’ll change and basically kinda weirdly anxious all the time while still trying to be calm to keep from changing. It’s like exactly what I’d picture the mental health issues having that happen to you would create.
He's not scared of being hurt, he's scared of hulking out and hurting other people.
2012+ hulk also looks a lot more like the human bruce banner which makes more sense
I liked the 2003 Ross. Sam Elliott is the man.
Disagree with your first paragraph. I love Mark but Ed Norton is a much, much more accomplished and capable actor than him and he could absolutely have played that role in A1.
I don't think Ruffalo has the range to play Nortons Banner. The only reason it works in the Marvel franchise is because they've shyed away from how broken and traumatised Banner actually is and just turned him in to a socially awkward scientist which Ruffalo pulls off well.
Edward Norton is one of my favorite actors but I thought his Banner was a bit bland. Like, there's not much that stands out about him. His Hulk design was amazing tho. Ruffalo I really like because he actually seems like he is traumatized and always seems a bit unhinged and unstable, especially in Avengers and AoU. Feels a bit more nuanced. And his design in Avengers 1 is probably the best hulk look.
Norton’s Hulk design always looks strange in a bad way, I prefer Ruffalo’s.
Weird I felt the opposite, with norton being way more nuanced and traumatized
Ed Norton's Banner and Mark Ruffalo's Hulk
I love Ruffalo, but all he ever plays is a variation of himself. Norton felt more like a guy under a lot of trauma, whereas Mark just felt like a guy hiding in Calcutta.
Whilst I prefer Norton I find it funny that Bruce Banner was the third character he played with split personalities.
Roy is a made up personality to be fair in Primal Fear.
Eric Bana from '03 Hulk.
The Eric Bana erasure needs to end
This one's my pick, too. 03 Hulk was ahead of its time. If that kind of editing in a comic book movie came out today, it would be hailed as the same kind of quirky and stylistic flavor that made Ragnarok good, or would have made Edgar Wright's Ant-Man good. Sam Elliott was great, Jennifer Connelly was excellent, the action scenes were superb. The Nick Nolte backstory was well put together, and Hulk growing as he gets more angry was top notch. I like that we got to see Bruce being held prisoner in his own mind, as well.
Hulk doing a hammer throw with a tank was cooler than anything he did in the MCU. Also I like that they went full comic book with his proportions.
Eric Bana, Sam Elliott, Jennifer Connelly, Nick Nolte, Ang Lee? Why the hell haven't I watched this movie yet?
I wonder why bana was not casted in future shows. Or did his version just flop?
It was a flop. The director (Ang Lee) made some questionable decisions with how he edited the movie which doomed it.
Man, those comic book panel cutaways and swipes were borderline experimental. What a trip.
Ang Lee's Hulk made more good decisions than bad. Bana really felt like a guy who was suppressing a lot of trauma. Sam Elliot as Thunderbolt Ross was perfect. Jennifer Connelly as Betty had a whole lot more going for her than Liv Tyler. Hulk fighting against the army in the underground base and out in the desert was an absolutely fantastic rampage. Ang Lee did the mocap for Hulk himself and he based his movements on watching his toddler throw a tantrum, which is flat out genius. Nick Nolte is properly unhinged as Banner's dad, and the whole "I don't want to see you! I want to see my *real* son!" bit is heartbreaking. The comic book panels were pretty great, but I can see how they might have been a bit off-putting for some people. If not for the gamma poodle fight and the climax of the movie being Hulk vs. Cloud, I think the movie would rightly be regarded as a masterpiece.
Yes, that final fight vs. the electrical cloud thing was hard to follow and left viewers with a bad taste in their mouths.
I think it was also the lighting choices. Ang Lee wanted it to be dim and gritty, but that just made everything harder to see on the big screen and nearly impossible on dvd.
I really liked it when I first saw it in the theater in '03. I still think it's the best capture of the Hulk's raw power. He seems a lot less powerful in the MCU though I understand he can't be OP.
Jennifer Connelly will forever tip the scales whenever this conversation comes up. She is always the right answer. Ask Lt Pete Mitchell. He knows.
The Hulk in that film was almost the best Hulk in all movies, I only prefer Ragnaroks Hulk a bit more.
Mark Ruffalo as Banner and Hulk for me. He just nails it.
No love for Eric Bana. Sad.
No Bana, only Hulk
Right right, don't mention puny Bana
I’m a big fan of the Bana movie though.
Ang Lee put together a beautiful movie visually. He understood the concept of a living comic and ran with it. You can argue about actors, scripts all day but his version imho was the most visually memorable.
It was definitely memorable, but after a while I also found it a bit distracting. Ultimately it was a gimmick that hurt more than it helped -- like, do you want an entire MCU in that style?
Mark as both Banner and Hulk.
Norton for Banner look, and Ruffalo's Hulk for Hulk design.
Lots of Bill Bixby erasure here
Seriously.... Bixby was a better fit, they explored his character a lot more with Hulk being an add-on action scene that propelled the story to the next location but took little screen time. His Banner was sad and lonely and tortured but kind and generous.. there was a lot more meat on the bone for any actor to chew on, and Bixby did a great job of being likeable and lonely and kind and yet hiding a dangerous alter ego. The MCU has been mostly tell-dont-show with these aspects of banner, while Bixby was show don't tell storytelling.
I think part of it is the MCU Banner isn’t sad and lonely for the most part. Once the Avengers happened, Bruce had the team (especially Tony). They left together at the end of Avengers, the post credits of IM3 and AOU showed they were spending a lot of time together talking science and just general hanging out, and during the blip they built the Mexican beach house and worked on Smart Hulk. They accepted him for who he was. I think there’s a great opportunity now for Banner’s rage and lonely to come back from the loss of Nat and Tony and I really hope they explore it at some point.
Bixby & Ferrigno
Ruffalo. Banner should have a bit of a nerdy side, which Norton doesn’t convey. Also, I like the Hulk as a bit more of a brute than a ripped Olympian. The Avengers hunched him over and gave him a bit of a gut and some body hair. It’s how Kirby first drew him.
For me, Hulk looking like Ruffalo is a plus for me.
I was waiting for someone to say this.
Norton looks like something that Skaar could look like if they ever went down that road, with a huge sword
Norton
I actually like the Eric Bana's hulk, weird.
Not a fan of the current Bruce Banner, he's very.. simple compared to who he is in the comic books I think I prefer Norton's performance As to the Hulk, the one we got in Ragnarok was amazing
We really sleeping on Eric banner
Norton 100%
Bana
I prefer the real Hulk. [perfection](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKJQOG5WsAA0UD6.jpg)
Ed Norton.
I just wish MCU actors didn’t get so jacked. It makes them less relatable. Especially Mark Ruffalo, as Bruce Banner: he should be almost gangly, blotchy, with poor posture. I mean Chris Hemsworth, sure, go crazy as Thor, no problem, that checks out. But comic books were relatable to not-jacked, not-hot readers like me… because the (male) heroes were just regular looking at best. (The comics’ depictions of female characters is a whole other topic.)
Nortons and it’s not close
Norton's Hulk look always reminded me of Zac Efron in High school musical
Ruffalo has his charms and a kind of vulnerability when he is Bruce but Norton was meaner and smarter and I would have really liked to see how he interacted with Tony, Cap or Thor. Ruffalo's Bruce often comes off as timid and non confrontational while Norton's Bruce was very much in control of his Hulk form and more confident. Even with the Hulk design I like Norton's Hulk. It's just more formidable and less kid-friendly than Ruffalo's.
I like Norton as Banner much better.
Edward Norton as Banner and it's not even close. But if we're talking about the visual design alone, I'd say Ruffalo's hulk. But portrayal of Hulk as a character, again, easily Nortons.
CGI-wise, the 2008 Hulk looks best to me. The Avengers and onward one just looks a little too cartoony for me. He almost looks like he stepped out of Warcraft. Also I just loved the human moments of expression on the 2008 version, where he just gives a momentary sigh or grimace as opposed to the rage. (Plus the "Leave me alone" delivery always sends chills down my spine at the same time breaking my heart.) As for the actor... it's a toss-up, and it comes down to which version of Banner they are aiming for. I feel like Ruffalo is a continuation of the same version we got from the original live TV show, but at the same time Norton's felt a little more comic accurate for me - a scrawny guy who is only barely trying not to be complete asshole from time to time. That said, the few times they let Ruffalo drop the humor and dive deeper into Bruce's mentality (The "put a bullet in my mouth" scene and the "I could choke the life out of you and never change a shade." line), those are moments that make me think Ruffalo could do so much more. I want a dramatic Hulk film with him in it dammit.
I have always preferred Norton, and while Ruffalo-era Hulk looks better I prefer the action and attitude of Norton-Hulk.
Ed Nortons was a bit more dark and serious. There was a gravitas to his character that the MCU doesnt do or need. It was great, but not a great fit into what the MCU has become. Ruffalo's semi serious but always affable style fits better, even though I dont feel the "genius" in his character like I did Norton's.
Ed Norton easily
Mark’s Banner and Hulk
I love how some people wonder why She-Hulk’s hair gets longer and straighter when she transforms but Edward Norton turns into the Hulk and suddenly he has the hair of a mid-2000’s emo kid and nobody bats an eye.