ROTTEN TOMATOES: More Bixby, Less Bana in Hulk 2

More Bixby, Less Bana in Hulk 2

by Fred Topel | June 21, 2007

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

Marvel Studios is happy to be relaunching the "Hulk" franchise with all new actors and a new vision for the film. They're not even above slamming their own work, as Marvel president Kevin Feige addressed questions about how "The Incredible Hulk" will differ from Hulk.

"The Hulk will be different from the first one because this one will be good," said Feige. He quickly added, no offense. "Frankly we're joking about it but there are certain elements in the first one that I'm very proud of. There are other elements that I'm not and the cast of the first film was spectacular. It was a great cast. You couldn't ask for a better cast coming together than you did in that first movie. And Eric Bana was great and frankly they were all great."

That said, casting Edward Norton was a way to bring back a more classical approach to Bruce Banner than Eric Bana delivered. "In looking to sort of reboot and looking to start the franchise fresh and new, we wanted to start with a clean slate. And it wasn't frankly Eric Bana that I was looking at and saying that we needed to improve upon, it was Bill Bixby because Bill Bixby is really what I believe most of the fans and most of the audience look to when they think of Bruce Banner, when they think of that sort of classic Hulk storyline."

When Norton came to mind, Feige never dreamed he would land the actor. "I was thinking who is that today? Who can get that empathy across and who is just a great actor in any medium? And we started talking about someone like Ed Norton. It's your dream in movies like this when you go, 'Oh boy, it would be great to have somebody like this' and end up actually getting that person that you were basing everything on."

Related Items

Movie:	Hulk
Celeb:	Bill Bixby
	Edward Norton
	Eric Bana
	Kevin Feige

(1-20 of 46 posts) | Reply

Vitamin M writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:45 AM

I still don't understand why everyone was ragging on the animation of the hulk in the first film, I thought it was awesome....just a thought from seeing the above picture of the jolly green giant.
anyway can't wait for this one...and IronMan...and Wolverine...and even Captain America....and BatMan...but not really Superman unless he fights a cool villian.

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:48 AM

i also dont understand why people rag on the hulk. sure, the poodles were a bit strange, but every thing else i thought was pretty cool. also, even though i like the norton casting, there was nothing wrong with the way bana played it.

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:51 AM

The CGI looked great. I'm about as critical as they come and I couldn't ask for much of anything more. The story and directing of the last movie is what blew. I'm looking forward to this remake.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:55 AM

There were elements that worked in the first one - no doubt - especially Bana IMO. But it was not a great film and plodded along. Origin stories don't need to do that especially with a super action wrecking machine like the Hulk. Pump up the volume, more "Hulk will smash!", forget the camp (as in FF 1, 2), and drop in a cool villain and this film will rock. Norton's take on Hulk should be cool too.

(Reply to this)

lonechicken writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:57 AM

Ang Lee was just a poor choice. I love his movies, but people don't expect slow and slower pacing out of a superhero movie. Especially a character that's supposed to kick ass like Hulk. "Hulk Smash!" not "Hulk ponder about emotionally torn cowboys swordfighting on bamboo trees in the middle of an ice storm during the civil war with Tobey Maguire."

Otherwise, I thought a lot of the comic-book-like frame transitions were a nice touch that were underappreciated.

(Reply to this)

Mr. Kong writes:
on Jun 21 2007 09:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#870371)
It's not so much a remake as it is a reinvention.

(Reply to this)

mojodaddy writes:
on Jun 21 2007 09:57 AM

Yeah, the 10 minutes when the hulk was in the movie were really cool. I think this one will be better though.

(Reply to this)

sharpless writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:01 AM

The first film was dull and lackluster. Throw in some more interesting characters and sprinkle it with a slightly more decent plot - without the comic book panels, preferably - and you've got something there. Bill Bixby will always be the Hulk, in my mind. Why? Because he was just a real guy with problems. Big problems.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:42 AM

would still prefer bana anyday. he was the best thing about the first one. blame the lackluster story, the lack of a decent villian(nolte as a drugged up courtney love impersonator? oooh scary!) and it was doomed anyway. i liked it(basically because a few parts are really cool) but overall it wouldn't have been better with anybody else as banner. the problems were with other casting choices, the lame characters, and a crap story.

(Reply to this)

IMAmoose24 writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:57 AM

Still have not seen "Hulk". Ever since the rumors of the new one started to come up, I have heard many different takes on the movie. Some say it was underrated and some say it was one of the worst movies they have ever seen. I need to know: should I even bother with it, or should I just wait for this newer one?

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Jun 21 2007 11:04 AM

In reply to this comment (#870378)
You should see it.

(Reply to this)

Callpacas writes:
on Jun 21 2007 11:21 AM

In reply to this comment (#870378)
if you got the money...always judge things yourself

(Reply to this)

the-russian writes:
on Jun 21 2007 11:31 AM

In reply to this comment (#870378)
If you like an in-depth story and you're able to be patient, you should like it. And its got, IMO, one of the greatest action scenes of all comic book movies: Hulk vs tanks (even as short as the scene might be).

(Reply to this)

PlanBFromOuterSpace writes:
on Jun 21 2007 12:56 PM

[b]Bad vs. Disappointing[/b]
I think that a lot of the time, people confuse bad with disappointing. I was disappointed with the first Hulk film, but I didn't think that it was bad. It just wasn't the type of movie that I expected to see or the movie it NEEDED to be to live up to the hype. If it had been marketed as some sort of psychological drama in the first place, I don't think that it would have left such a negative impression. Instead, we were led to believe that it would be all-out action and something that kids and families might dig. Why ELSE would the Hulk's image be plastered all over anything you could buy at Wal Wart, choking the toy aisles of stores everywhere?

What we got wasn't a movie for kids or action afficionadoes. That's not to say that they COULDN'T watch it. It's just they wouldn't WANT to really. Hulk had one of the most unnecessarily talkiest first hours of ANY film in the superhero/comic book genre, and it lost a LOT of people before it really got going. Instead of thinking "Wow, that's awesome!" when Hulk began smashing, you're left thinking "Finally, he's hitting something!". Even in the comics, Hulk has one of the most violent origins of all with Bruce Banner essentially surviving being blown up in a nuclear explosion, and even THAT was changed in favor of more psychobabble. The first hour could have been scaled down to 20 minutes and it wouldn't have made much difference at all.

I think that a lot of the hate for Hulk comes from that first hour, and a lot of people say it sucks because of that, when really, its just that the first act went on FOREVER. I admit, the final fight was pretty weak, but at least we GOT a fight and a lot of good action in the second half, not just 2 and a half hours of a super strong superhero catching things and gently setting them down, a la "Superman Returns".

(Reply to this)

Aqueryan Reloaded writes:
on Jun 21 2007 03:17 PM

[b]Kevin Feige is a freakin' idiot[/b]
Great. So Marvel's president, Kevin Feige, is shockingly - I'd go so far as to say, embarassingly - out of touch with one of his company's franchise character's to the point that he doesn't realize that Eric Bana's portrayal of Bruce Banner (and that's BRUCE, not David btw) was much more in line with the [original] comic book character than Bill Bixby's TV incarnation. It's downright insulting that Feige is more concerned with bringing the movie in line with the diluted TV series than with the actual comic book. Don't these suits ever realize that it's a bad idea to stay from the original source material?

Don't get me wrong, I love Ed Norton and I think he'll be awesome in the role...but Bana made one hell of a good Bruce Banner imo.

(Reply to this)

taran72 writes:
on Jun 21 2007 03:29 PM

Hulk>Superman Returns

That being said, this cheap@ss hindsight belittling of Hulk is lame. Where's the Marvel president when Ghost Rider totally blows or the Fantastic Four casts Biel as a scientist? That doesn't even scratch the surface of the insulting crap known as Daredevil, Elektra, and (most heinous crime of all), X3. Instead, he takes a cheap shot at a movie that actually took some chances, yet signs movie deals for these useless IP:

Thor (yawn)
Doctor Strange (more yawn)
Ant-Man (wtf?!)
Iron Fist (what, no Power Man?)
Nick Fury (again?!)
Silver Surfer (pointless spinoff)
Magneto (Hannibal Rising, anyone?)

Among others. He's just a gold-digger, and doesn't give a crap about the integrity of the Marvel Universe.

(Reply to this)

Defmonkey writes:
on Jun 21 2007 04:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#870384)
Now see, I'm really interested in Thor, Nick Fury and Silver Surfer.

Magneto, I couldn't care about, but I'll still see.

The others I'm kinda meh as well, but only because I know little about Ant-Man, Iron Fist and Dr. Strange.

I'm kinda anticipating Nick Fury if their doing the Ultimate Series, because if they really cast Sam Jackson, it should be really great.

(Reply to this)

Product_of_You writes:
on Jun 21 2007 04:57 PM

I disagree that the problem with the Hulk was the first hour. I thought the Hulk movie was good until his dad turned into a supervillian. If the movie had ended before that happened it would have been pretty good, but that last about 30 minutes was to hokey and ridiculous.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Jun 21 2007 05:16 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but I think a Sgt. Rock movie is long overdue so I would rather that before any more Marvel characters and Tarantino would do it justice.

(Reply to this)

interplanetaryspy writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:07 PM

[b]Sad[/b]
It really is sad when people put down one of the few of all of the multitude of superhero movies to actually care about the character. People knock movies like Fantastic 4 for the lack of character development, and then when a movie like Hulk comes along with all of the depth of character they complain others don't have, they complain about that, too. It just proves some people just want to complain.

(Reply to this)