ROTTEN TOMATOES: The "Hulk" Gets a New Creator!

The "Hulk" Gets a New Creator!

by Scott Weinberg | April 06, 2007

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

For Ang Lee's "Hulk," it was Industrial Light & Magic that brought the massive green guy to life on the silver screen. But when it comes to Louis Leterrier's follow-up, "The Incredible Hulk," Universal is going with a company called Rhythm & Hues Studio.

Rhythm & Hues are best-known for their work on Aslan the Lion in "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," although some of their team members won Oscars for their work on the original "Babe." The upstart outfit has also signed on to do work for "Alvin and the Chipmunks," "Evan Almighty," "The Kingdom," and "The Golden Compass." (Check out their official site right here.)

Since most of R&H's previous work focused on the "animal" side of the equation, obviously the team is really looking forward to blowing our doors off with their all-new Hulk. President Lee Berger says "It's the first time Rhythm & Hues has been able to take a human-like character to its full exposition ... There's great enthusiasm for this project."

Apparently this means that the Hulk will look a bit different from the first flick, which may or may not be a problem, depending on if you liked Ang Lee's adaptation. (I sure did.) Our source also indicates that the "Incredible Hulk" screenplay will be credited to Zak Penn, Stan Lee, and Jack Kirby -- which sounds a little weird considering that Mr. Kirby died in 1994.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Related Items

Movie:	The Golden Compass
	Babe
	The Kingdom
	Evan Almighty
	Hulk
	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Celeb:	Jack Kirby
	Louis Leterrier
	Stan Lee
	Zak Penn
	Ang Lee

(1-18 of 18 posts) | Reply

Mikeal420 writes:
on Apr 06 2007 06:56 AM

Sounds like the effects will be tight for this Hulk. Can't say much about the director though, I hated both his films.

Ang Lee's problem might of been he had too much vision when making the "Hulk", and therefor bored all the 15 year old fanboy idiots that lack any attention span.

Leterrier's problem I'm sure will be a lack of any vision at all- which might make the target audience for this film happy since most of them lack it as well

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Apr 06 2007 07:46 AM

Worst name for an Effects house ever.

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Apr 06 2007 07:59 AM

i thought the hulk looked great in the first one. even though i liked the first hulk, the poodles were a little weird.

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Apr 06 2007 08:10 AM

Maybe it's based partly on a work Mr. Kirby did before he died. Duh.

(Reply to this)

Prosper761 writes:
on Apr 06 2007 08:10 AM

Ang Lee's "Hulk" was an empty, soulless film. I didn't care about a single character and found the comic book panels annoying - I wanted to see a movie, not read a comic book. As for the Hulk, himself, he looked ridiculous and obviously animated. Leterrier certainly can't make a worse film.

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Apr 06 2007 08:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#860428)
I agree the Hulk looked great in the first one too. Ang Lee's intention was obviously to capture the look he had in the comic book. I could see how many interpreted him as looking cartoonish, but that was part of the point.

(Reply to this)

Racer Z writes:
on Apr 06 2007 10:24 AM

In reply to this comment (#860430)
Well, a worse film can most certainly be made. I loved Ang Lee's film and think it's one of the best superhero films to date. As for the Hulk character effects, obviously he was animated. Where are you going to find a 12 foot muscle bound green giant that can be filmed on location? The effects were superb. I fear the next film will simply degenerate into nothing more than a mindless display of "Hulk smash" with no substance.

(Reply to this)

mmbond writes:
on Apr 06 2007 02:17 PM

[b]comic panels[/b]
The comic panels were one of the many things that were excellent about the 1st Hulk Move (Ang Lee). The panels were cinematic and engaging in the best possible way. If anything, Ang Lee's Hulk suffers from being a very expensive art-house film in an age when studios and many members of the audience want a soulless popcorn film as evidenced by the box office of Pirates II - an absolutely horrible film.

(Reply to this)

pinkincide writes:
on Apr 06 2007 06:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#860427)
Second worst behind "Banned from the Ranch".

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Apr 07 2007 12:17 AM

In reply to this comment (#860436)
Heh, I heard of them. That [b]is[/b] the stupidest name.

However, WETA isn't better than ILM. They both worked on [i]Eragon[/i], and that couldn't come anywhere near ILM's earlier work on [i]Dragonslayer [/i]or [i]Reign of Fire[/i].

Congrats to R&H for this assignment. They just may be appreciated over whatever story passes for this "Hulk Out" sequel.

(Reply to this)

Xhrix writes:
on Apr 07 2007 07:56 AM

I'd prefer puppets & robotics over CGI, but noboby goes that route anymore. What looked more real to you? Yoda & Jabba from Empire Strikes Back & Return Of The Jedi, or The last CGI Hulk?

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Apr 07 2007 08:11 AM

In reply to this comment (#860438)
Thank you, I'm glad someone finally gets that. Where have you gone Jim Henson, a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you woo woo woo...I know he's dead, but then again so is Joe Dimaggio. We need more true special effects geniuses not more Computer geeks obsessed with squeezing 1 more pixel into every frame.

(Reply to this)

Scarborough Fair writes:
on Apr 07 2007 03:17 PM

I agree, I'd like to see a return of Jim Henson style puppetry. There's something about knowing that people are offstage controlling the eyes and facial features on the suit that a skinny man is acting in that makes the movie more REAL to me. Or when someone's hand is up the behind of the puppet, and they're making a funny voice for that 'creature', it really hits home.
"this is entertainment" I say loudly to the audience in the theatre.
"shh!"
"shh yourself you fat fuck! go fuck your fat hairy greek cunt of a wife at home and stay out of my fucking theatre! If i want to hear a 'shushing' sound i'll go cut your fucking tires in the parking lot! how would you like that you jew-greek-cock gobbler!?? I HATE YOUR BULLSHIT! DID YOU GET A LOAD OF THE COOL PUPPETS THOUGH?"

(Reply to this)

Brad 3000 writes:
on Apr 07 2007 09:13 PM

In reply to this comment (#860430)
I can only imagine by your last statement that you have never seen Transporter 2.

(Reply to this)

Atomix writes:
on Apr 08 2007 12:00 AM

Lee's movie sucked because it tried too hard to be a drama and strayed too far from the original material. I hope Lee watched Sin City every night before he goes to bed.

(Reply to this)

Mikeal420 writes:
on Apr 08 2007 08:08 AM

In reply to this comment (#860439)
I agree, in fact, whats with all this sound in movies today anyway. I enjoyed it when actors didn't talk, they only acted. It was also a great feeling knowing there was someone offstage playing the piano rather than this phony "recorded" music they're puting in movies today.

and whats with this celluloid photographic film they're using too. I remember when an artist had to draw and paint what he wanted to show. Man, people have gotten so lazy today.

(Reply to this)

ChinaRises writes:
on Apr 08 2007 08:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#860440)
I like that this site would probably censor out Scarborough Fairs swear-words and yet keep his racist statements against Greeks and Jews.

Way to pick and choose free-speech there, ROTTENTOMATOES!!

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Apr 08 2007 10:38 AM

In reply to this comment (#860443)
haha, very nice, I'm not advocating going back to black and white. I just think people have fallen in love with green screen and fail to realize that there's still things you can do better with non-CGI special effects.

(Reply to this)