ROTTEN TOMATOES: More Bixby, Less Bana in Hulk 2 Comments

More Bixby, Less Bana in Hulk 2

by Fred Topel | June 21, 2007

Summary

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. Back to Article

(1-46 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)

iakobos writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:28 PM

Personally, I didn't think the first Hulk movie was all that bad. But I had a friend who was a big fan of the comic who was bitterly disappointed with Hulk's look and other aspects of the movie. For my part I could have done without the hulk poodle.

I was a fan of the TV series when I was a kid and I kind of prefered Lou Ferigno's Hulk to the comic book or CGI movie version. I think having a human Hulk brought more humanity to the part rather than the CGI monster. The movie Hulk was so big it was hard for me to relate to him as a human person who accidently is turned into this monster.

I thought Eric Bana did a great job and I confess to having enjoyed his other work, especially Black Hawk Down. Regardless, I saw the first one on DVD and will do the same with the second.

(Reply to this)

dwaltonk writes:
on Jun 21 2007 08:54 PM

In reply to this comment (#870388)
Actually, in this case too much character development was its drawback. As said by many others, the action was great, but it wasn't enough. I remember the dream scenes thinking "what's behind the door? What's behind the door?" There were so many of those and it just turned out to be the Hulk. I thought it might have been his dad in a memory, but instead it was just build-up for somehting that we already knew. It was just frustrating. It was all build up when the movie already had enough steam. The final battle was a big letdown though. I was in Junior High and I still thought it was ridiculous.

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:08 PM

[b]Eric Bana...[/b]
For some time now, he has been the only real standout in a bunch of mediocre films. Whether people like his films or not, most would agree they've all had flaws and underperformed, however Bana (it would seem) is one of their main redeeming factors. Troy and Hulk being obvious examples. Where other notable actors or plot points failed to impress, he managed to keep his impressive acting streak running. Again, take Munich for example, a much better film than the previous two, but still this movie underperformed in some regard because of the way it was snubbed by the oscars. I'm sure Eric Bana will eventually get a chance to get up on that stage soon though.

Anyone who hasn't seen the Australian film "Chopper" should give it a shot - this is perhaps Bana's best performance ever (one of the best performances by anyone in my opinion).

(Reply to this)

the-russian writes:
on Jun 21 2007 10:09 PM

I gotta say, kudos to you guys for presenting your opinions in well-thought-out manners. You guys have good points, and it's refreshing to read them without all the insults.

(Reply to this)

Elixir writes:
on Jun 21 2007 11:30 PM

i didn't think the first one was all that bad. geesh, i bet this one will suck more.

(Reply to this)

Silverevilchao writes:
on Jun 22 2007 12:35 AM

[b]I HATED the first Hulk.[/b]
Two words: Gamma. Dogs.

That was one of the things that doomed the movie for me. Another was the incredibly slow pacing and lack of action - y'know, the same things that totally ruined Spider-Man 3 for me.

Hopefully, this will be a better incarnation...

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Jun 22 2007 12:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#870392)
Shut up!!!! ;P

(Reply to this)

Young Turk writes:
on Jun 22 2007 02:03 AM

[b]If[/b]
They just have more action sequences it would have been a lot better. There really wasn't anything wrong with the first movie other than it was too slow moving for a movie about a hulking brute that gets bigger and smashes things when he is mad. Give me a break, the CGI was insanely good you can't argue with that.

(Reply to this)

Film Cricket writes:
on Jun 22 2007 05:14 AM

They should use a CGI Bill Bixby and forget casting a flesh-and-blood Bruce Banner. That would be a kick-ass Hulk film. And the new one should definitely open with Hulk smashing. It should be the first shot and keeping going for at least 30 minutes before anyone opens their mouth to say anything.

(Reply to this)

pota1967 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 06:17 AM

Why dont they just release an Incredible Hulk tv show 2 parter and call it a movie??
I didnt care for the first Hulk movie or the CGI.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Jun 22 2007 06:19 AM

I really liked the editing and the characterization on the first one. I hated the CGI. I really hated the poodles. But the acting was great.

(Reply to this)

swisshammer writes:
on Jun 22 2007 09:45 AM

[b]I agree[/b]
...with most people on this board. Eric Bana was excellent as Bruce Banner. Edward Norton? Hmm... could be interesting, but I was really interested in seeing a return of "Hulk" as the grey Hulk. Why rehash what has already been done. Did anyone see Dominion? I mean, COME ON! You can't take us down a story line and then say, "whoops, my bad. It didn't go like that at all. It went like this."

Ok, the end fight scene was lame. I'll give Feige that. But what the f**ck is this guy trying to say? You know, as much crap that Avi Arad put out, I'd much rather have him back at the helm (he did put out Hellboy, X-Men 1 and 2, Spider-man 1 and 2, which were all great IMO). So instead of bashing a film he had little to do with, Feige should give some respect to a guy who tried hard to honor the integrity of the COMIC stories.

And yeah, Hulk smashing tanks is pretty damn cool if you ask me.

(Reply to this)

swisshammer writes:
on Jun 22 2007 09:59 AM

In reply to this comment (#870383)
[b]Yep[/b]
"Kevin Feige is a freakin' idiot
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."

I could not agree more. Shocking that a money-grubbing guy can't even get the characters each played straight. How disappointing that Marvel put this douche in charge.

(Reply to this)

Baccus83 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 10:27 AM

I feel like I appreciated the Ang Lee's movie more than I really liked it. I will admit that pacing-wise, it was downright sluggish. And let's not forget those mutant poodles. But as somebody who prizes character as the most important aspect of any story, I was satisfied. However, it was a comic-book story, and it follows that comic-book stories must be supplemented with action. The action in the first film, though balletic, was too spread out.

I don't really think of the first Hulk as a failure. Far from it. It's more of a curiosity for me. Certainly much better than your "Daredevils" and your "Fantistic Fours."

That being said, I hope that this next one will be able to engage me viscerally where the first one didn't. However, I'm skeptical when Mr. Feige mentions Bill Bixby as a point of reference. I was never one to think that Bixby's Banner had much character. Bana's Banner was superior, in my opinion. The flaw of the first film was it's inability to engage the audience with a consistent level of action, not the way the character's were portrayed. Let's hope somebody realizes this before it's too late and they end up making "Batman and Robin."

(Reply to this)

3263827 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 12:37 PM

In reply to this comment (#870388)
[b]More Complaining[/b]
I think you just proved you own point.

(Reply to this)

Ash Talon writes:
on Jun 22 2007 02:03 PM

The Hulk sequences in the first film were great. However, the melodrama about his dad was terrible. Yeah, I know Peter David "revealed" that Bruce Banner had been abused by his dad, so the oppressive father element is comic book canon. However, Nick Nolte was ridiculous in the film and ruined every scene he was in.

Why the love for Eric Bana? He was rather dull and uninteresting. I realize a lot of this is the direction and obviously the writing. There was absolutely no reason to like Bruce in this movie. He can't even seem to emote. As for character development...well, I don't see it. Sure, they spent on time having nightmare flashbacks about his mom (would he really have memories from when he was 2 yrs old?), and his girlfriend thought he was cold (appears that way to me as well) and unemotional. Other than that....where's the character development? What does Bruce Banner feel about...anything in this movie universe? What's his personality? Describe him to someone else without referring to his physical appearance. I just didn't care about Bruce Banner in the first movie. I didn't buy him as a human being.

By contrast, there IS character development in FF2. Sure, they're all rather broad characters. However, there are some good quiet moments between some of the characters that speak volumes. Sue and Reed discussing quiting the superhero business (couldn't believe I actually liked Alba in a movie). Johnny and Ben discussing dying and having someone to love. I know people are slamming it, but I think FF2 managed to fit in quite a bit of character for such a short film with so many characters.

One thing, besides the Hulk himself and his action scenes, that did work in the movie was the atmosphere. It actually did capture the kooky mood from the 60's Hulk comics. Besides the desert, the lab experiments, the military, and the characters themselves. There was almost this intangible vibe in the air that felt right. Too bad the "daddy issues" dragged the movie into quicksand.

(Reply to this)

jrdamwijk writes:
on Jun 22 2007 03:16 PM

[b]Personally[/b]
I think that compared to the first film in the franchise, this one will suck. That is my well thought out and hugely worked on comment. Love it.

(Reply to this)

TheDon1010 writes:
on Jun 22 2007 03:32 PM

[b]Nolte Villian[/b]
I thought Nick Nolte was one of the better marvel villians. He was definitely a strong point for the movie in terms of acting and interest.......However, the screenplay put him in a few unnecessary and dumb situations. (Dogs, supermonster incohernce)

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jun 23 2007 05:19 AM

[b]Daredevil: The Do-over[/b]
Am I to understand that when Marvel is dissatisfied with a franchise starter, they just reboot it and add its root comic book descriptive to the title? Does this mean [i]Daredevil: The Man Without Fear[/i] is possible?

(Reply to this)

detroit666 writes:
on Jun 25 2007 12:21 PM

[b]They still don't get it............[/b]
The Original BIXBY Hulk was more about "The Fugitive" than about CGI. He didn't fight 'big hulking CGI monsters". He fought for the little guy, he fought his own demons, and he fled from those who would expose him.

I had hopes for this version when it was mentioned that Norton would be taking the lead. Now, I don't know.

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Jun 28 2007 08:36 PM

To quote a rather overused movie cliche': "I have a bad feeling about this."

Ang Lee's Hulk had a lot wrong with it, but if you watched it with an open mind, you'd have seen it was not a bad film. Instead of rebooting, perhaps they just needed to let Lee do a sequel, with more fan stuff. The first movie established the characters, they fought their inner demons, gone through the whole Greek tragedy spiel etc... a sequel would not have needed that and could have focused more on Hulk vs. Villain.

In fact, I rather like the origin aspects of the first film... the pseudoscience was great... they made it almost plausible... rather than just "oh, he got hit with some gamma rays and now he's hulky"

Now what... we're getting another origin story? Hope not.

(Reply to this)

air-x-images writes:
on Aug 06 2007 09:52 PM

I HOPE THE THEY USE THE HULK FROM THE 1ST MOVIE... THERE IS NOTHIN THEY CAN DO TO MAKE THAT HULK ANY BETTER!!! I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE DETAIL, YOU CANT HELP BUT BE BLOWN AWAY BY IT. ANYONE CAN CG SCENERY IE LANDSCAPES, BUILDINGS EVEN CARS THAT TRANSFORM INTO ROBOTS(WHICH WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST MOVIES OF ALL TIME)AND MAKE IT LOOK REAL, BUT IT TAKES SOME REAL GENIUS TO CREATE THAT HULK!!U CAN C VEINS, HAIR STRAINDS, MUSCLE STRIATIONS, THEY THOUGHT OF EVERYTHING.. EVEN THE PROPORTIONS OF THE HULK WAS INCREDIBLE!! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO TRULY APPRECIATES WHAT THEY DID IN THE 1ST HULK? I ADMIT THE POODLE AND THE END ABSORBING MONSTER AT THE END WAS LAME, BUT U CANT TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THE OTHER SCENES OF THE HULK WHEN HE WAS RUNNING, JUMPING, DESTROYING THE TANKS AND TAKING ON THE CHOPPERS IN THE MOUNTAINS.
THE NEXT MOVIE SHOULD DEPICT THE HULK AS A HERO, USING HIS ABILITIES TO SAVE LIVES..

(Reply to this)

morphelan writes:
on Aug 18 2007 05:06 PM

Personally I liked the first movie, not exactly what I was expecting but good all the same. I think the problem was that most people were expecting a formulaic superhero/blockbuster movie with lots of set peices and the like. I thought the CGI HULK was fantastically created and the Banner persona was played eceptionally well by Bana. The story with Banner has always been that he tries to hold the HULK back / find a cure for himself. Hopefully they will just continue the story and not try to redo was has already been achieved. The screenwriters have a carte blanche to do a big action flick this time round if they want to and still keep it as a continuation to first movie. Just keep in mind that the HULK story is not all about "HULK SMASH".

(Reply to this)

fluorescentlightbulb writes:
on Feb 03 2008 07:26 PM

I (personally) think that The Hulk should talk. I'm not saying him speaking in 3rd person or in Fragments. I'm saying, he should say full sentences, but still be a man of few words. can;t wait for the "reboot" its ganna be great. oh, and i like how the hulk looks realistic in the new flick. i thought he was too light of green in the last film. I'm just glad they got Ed Norton to act in it, as well as write the screen play. the film will be fantastic. I'm sure it will.
but the movie I ,as well as the majority of the fans, want to see. A Marvel Team up movie. with all the Marvel characters. (or at least just the important ones) trying to stop the end of the world or something. that will be tight.

(Reply to this)

Grindking writes:
on Mar 11 2008 12:33 PM

I personally thought Bana did a good job, it's too bad they had to cut him off

(Reply to this)

mrcynister writes:
on Apr 07 2008 07:12 AM

First of all the Hulk is my favorite graphic novel to date, and I think it is a mistake to change actors to play the Hulk[i.e.the Batman series], the first one with Eric Bana was well acted, just poorly written and directed and was totally setup for a Hulk 2, and this is what we get???. this looks like they just want a great special effects[oh and throw in a lame story], movie for the summer. [Sigh] should of stayed with the core they had from the first movie and written a killer script[now there's a novel idea]. oh well, at least Ironman looks promising..:), go back to work on the Hulk, maybe someday you'll get it right.

(Reply to this)