ROTTEN TOMATOES: Edward Norton Wants Hulk Sequels Comments

Edward Norton Wants Hulk Sequels

by Jeff Giles | January 24, 2008

Summary

Were you a little surprised when you heard that Edward Norton had signed on to star in (and ultimately co-write) The Incredible Hulk? Skeptical, even? Well, don't feel bad -- Norton had the same reaction at first. Back to Article

(1-26 of 26 posts) | Reply

Gimy writes:
on Jan 24 2008 05:16 AM

i'm sorry but Norton really has little to do with this ultimately being successful. what, you're saying Bana sucked? hardly. its the Hulk, not the Bruce Banner Chronicles...so unless HE actually talks and does stuff as the Hulk...its up to the CGI team and the storyline/action people that will make or break this movie. same as the last one. only if there's a REALLY weak supporting character(Nolte) will this be as bad as the first. i didn't mind the first, obviously it could have been better...but to hint it had anything to do with Bana is simply retarded. he did what he could with a bad script.

(Reply to this)

John Z. Delorean writes:
on Jan 24 2008 06:20 AM

Definitely agree with Gimy. Eric Bana was not horrible and I actually like many parts of that Hulk movie. Ultimately it is how the audience recieves the Hulk and not Banner that makes the movie. People cried that there wasn't enough Hulk and then others complained that the Hulk looked corny. It's whatever I liked the flick and though it was one of the few well done marvel movies.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jan 24 2008 06:27 AM

In reply to this comment (#1515176)
Maybe we're reading different articles here. At no point did Norton hint that Bana was the downfall of '03s Hulk. To be sure, we are in agreement that he most certainly was not. I also agree that a balance of story and action will be integral to this film, but have to completely disagree with the notion that the portrayal of Banner is in any way inconsequential. That's tantamount to saying, well, it doesn't matter how Christian Bale does as Bruce Wayne or how Tobey Maguire does as Peter Parker, so long as Batman and Spider-Man are cool.

Given that the characters are alter egos, and, ultimately, inseparable, our reception of both sides is equally important. Norton has little to do with the success of this film? Ok, let's keep everything else exactly as they are going with it so far but instead cast Dane Cook as Bruce Banner. Yikes!

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jan 24 2008 06:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#1515176)
Oh yeah, also, Gimy, John, let me add that I'm also with you guys on having not hated Lee's Hulk. Still, we can't exclude the importance of a strong Banner portrayal. I for one would definitely welcome Bana back. But I'm totally stoked about Norton.

(Reply to this)

MattBaerFTW writes:
on Jan 24 2008 06:32 AM

bana was bad *** as he usually is it was the most the rest of the movie that blew but i think norton AND the movie are gonna rock the **** like bale and batman begins rocked and how the dark knight is gonna rock face in part with the returning cast and heath ledger as the joke(may he rest in peace)

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Jan 24 2008 06:42 AM

As one of those nerds who likes to complain about comic book movies, I do have to admit that The Hulk wasn't really that bad. When they portrayed the Hulk, they did a good job. What I saw as negatives to the movie, were that the Hulk's opponents weren't at all interesting, and there wasn't enough Hulk, but hopefully those two issues will be fixed in this next one.

And the CGI Hulk was great. Way closer to what the Hulk is supposed to look like than the old TV show.

(Reply to this)

Elixor writes:
on Jan 24 2008 06:44 AM

I agree that Bana was great and I'm sure that Norton won't disappoint.

(Reply to this)

Xavier Telouran writes:
on Jan 24 2008 07:00 AM

Actually, it was Ang performing all the Hulk stuff in his movie, so Norton doing it might actually improve it. Or for pete's sake, just go get Andy Serkis. I think the guy's done enough motion capture by now to know what he's doing.

And Elixor points out the rub: there are those who grew up with the TV show who saw the CGI Hulk and laughed because Lou Ferregno was suddenly 25 feet tall. Somehow you have to draw those people back into the idea that that's what Hulk was supposed to look like, and Ferregno, bless him, was the best they could do at that point in time (save maybe animating him, and tell how bad THAT would have taken you out of the episodes...).

(Reply to this)

donatsu2000 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 07:48 AM

I think in general, this franchise "restart", which seems to be now the answer to every franchise that hasn't taken off like a rocket or is drying up, has some major plusses & minuses going for it, which in the end will make it a complete coin toss as to how it'll turn out.

Plus - Louis Leterrier - Transporter 1 was good (it had its moments), Unleashed was better.

Minus - Louis Leterrier - Transporter 2 was abysmal, laughable. Unforgivable? I can never understand how a director can swing so wildly in quality. Not as bad as say Jaws vs. Hook. But still, it's as if he chucked any taste he has out the window for Transporter 2.

Minus - Zak Penn! Zak Penn cannot write. I don't care about Loch Ness, nor being one of many writers on X2, the man has written far too much crap to make it up with those two credits.
Try to explain Elektra? Come on, explain that one away. Elektra!

Plus - Edward Norton - When he's trying Norton is a phenomenal actor. When he isn't he walks through roles. Although he has never written anything else, I have more faith in Norton re-writing whatever Penn wrote than Leterrier sticking with what was already written.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jan 24 2008 07:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#1515665)
Well, in Penn's credit, he also wrote Suspect Zero. Which wasn't bad writing. If he can somehow channel that effort and, as you said, if Norton's influence on the writing can elevate the abysmal depths that Penn's writing has sunk too since, then we'll probably have ourselves a winner. However, if the Ghost Of Elektra Past gets its way...

(Reply to this)

filmoholic writes:
on Jan 24 2008 08:02 AM

If this is half as good as Batman Begins,i will see it.

(Reply to this)

LordVapor writes:
on Jan 24 2008 08:18 AM

The downfall of the first movie, was that is 5 hours long, and there wasn't much HULK. When there was the only really good scene was with him against the army. HULK fighting Barry Bonds' Dogs really didn't do it for me. Bana was a good Bruce Banner though. Don't know why they brought in Nolte because his part was written to where no one could save that.

This one will be a good movie too, but I think because they wont have it be 3 hours long, and there won't be 2 hours go by before we see the man in green.

Also, the CGI HULK was kick @SS

(Reply to this)

donatsu2000 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 08:26 AM

Matanuki -
Suspect Zero...wasn't terrible, but it wasn't good and while the writing wasn't embarrassing like Elektra...Billy Ray was credited on Suspect Zero too. While Billy Ray has some clunkers too in his past, it doesn't compare to Penn's AND he's got Breach and Shattered Glass to his credit. Penn has no such balance. Penn has never written anything by himself. That in itself is a testament.

Loch Ness was co-written by Werner Herzog...now who should be credited with THAT quality.
X2 - Penn was 1 of 5 writers.
Behind Enemy Lines - he was 1 of 4.
X3 - credited with Simon Kinberg
Elektra - 1 of 3
Inspector Gadget - 1 of 3
PCU - 1 of 2
Last Action Hero - 1 of 4

Of course since he was never alone on his failures too, he could have been plagued by other writers on those films. But it stands to reason that if he were good, he wouldn't be rewritten consistently on his successes.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jan 24 2008 08:28 AM

Norton hinted in earlier interviews(right when he took the part) that he wasn't exactly enamored with Bana's performance. he didn't OUTRIGHT say it, and didn't name bana by name(like this interview, being coy) but it was pretty obvious what he meant. thats why i referenced Bana's performance

sorry, again...its NOT Bruce Banner's movie. its called the Hulk. Norton is not nearly as important as its being said. he could be amazing, and it wouldn't really matter if the rest sucks since its NOT about him. at least i hope not, that would mean there's not that much hulk in this movie and that would suck. and bringing up Serkis is genius. i thought i heard him say he lived with gorillas for awhile, or at least interacted with them for a long time BEFORE King Kong. dude is sick at his craft, and i think he would be amazing at being the Hulk. i'm sick of the Batman references and bale already. Bale was batman AND bruce. he was the character 100%. Norton i bet will be, at most, 40% of this film. thats AT MOST. its a completely different tune when the lead guy isn't real, he's cgi.

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 10:15 AM

I'm already up for more Hulk and I haven't even seen this one! I have so much faith in Norton as the Hulk that I know in my gut that this film will be good.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Jan 24 2008 10:26 AM

In reply to this comment (#1515738)
We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that point then, Gimy. Anyway, we all want the same thing; a great Hulk film. The imprint definitely deserves to be nothing short of incredible (pun not intended). However Norton, especially since not only is he playing Banner but is also co-writing the script, is, no matter how we cut it, a very important aspect of whether this will be a hit or miss.

As for your comments, donatsu, can't argue with ya. Call me crazy, but I just got a really good feeling about this one. Especially considering the way Marvel is handling the project in conjunction with Iron Man and the upcoming Avengers pic. I doubt they'd greenlight writing of the Elektra or Inspector Gadget variety. In fact I think they'd sooner fire Penn off the project.

(Reply to this)

Jumpmanchump00 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 10:39 AM

In reply to this comment (#1515176)
the 1st movie wasn't great but it also wasn't horrible good graphics nice cast some cool action sequence's and some bad one's the overall story line well I didn't care to much about the bruce (bana) and his father (nolte) going head to head to much drama and the dog fighting scene well it speaks for it's self. I still like it and the cgi on the hulk and I don't care what anyone says I like the way the hulk look hey could of been more aggressive with the look but the next one coming out this summer I believe it will be a blockbuster and (norton jr.) I know he will and the entire cast will rejuvenate the hulk franchise and make it entertaining to hulk fan's everywhere so stop complaining give this new one a chance complain after you see this movie plus this movie promise's more action with more hulk smash

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Jan 24 2008 10:57 AM

Matan...i agree, i want these flicks to live up to their hype. Cloverfield did, so we're off to a good start this year. last year's sequels and summer blockbusters...not all of em did. i'm just a lil' worried when a guy comes out cocky, doesn't DIRECTLY bash the previous movie but pretty much does so, and then says he's making it his own. its always hit or miss. just worried its going to be a foul tip...rather than a homerun

(Reply to this)

Ender7406 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 11:32 AM

I'm with Norton on this. It's time to reinvent The Hulk. No more "Wait, what about what Ferrigno did?" Most of the people who are gonna go see this aren't even old enough to understand the David Banner references on Family Guy or in The Wedding Singer. (I hate you Adam Sandler for being the only thing on TV on a lonely Thursday night...) Heath Ledger purposefully avoided mirroring Nicholson's Joker for a reason. Let us hope Norton is as wise as he has led us to believe he is with films like American History X, Fight Club, and Rounders.

(Reply to this)

EmmG389 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 11:34 AM

Hopefully Andy Serkis is attached or that Norton does the same thing Serkis did for gollum or king kong. They should use the same technology that Peter Jackson used for King Kong and Lord of the Rings for the hulk or Landis's technology for Werewolf of London. They also need to get rid of the cheesy comic book editing, it really didn't work well with the seriousness of tone in the first hulk film. Looking forward to it.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Jan 24 2008 12:29 PM

In reply to this comment (#1515665)
Norton has written other pieces. He did a rewrite on Frida that was uncredited due to guild rules.

(Reply to this)

RainNIU writes:
on Jan 24 2008 03:06 PM

I loved Bana in 'Hulk', but thought that what he had to deal with as enemies was extremely weak. Actually I was kind of ok with things until the whole dad thing towards the end.

I did think that it's too soon for a reboot of a franchise when there are a lot of other characters and stories to explore.

(Reply to this)

NewberL337 writes:
on Jan 24 2008 03:32 PM

Ya know personally, I am pretty stoked about Norton being banner, he fits the part well. Bana was awesome as hell too, and both Norton and Bana rank within my top 10 for actors. I mean, you see Munich?? That movie was a-mazing. Troy he was great in and even the movie 'The Other Boelyn' girl I am most likely going to see and a good part because Bana is playing Henry, he is very mutli-versed.

As far as the original Hulk went I agree 110 with the first few poster that the script had sucked and a lot more could have been advanced to enhance the movie all together. Bana on his part did the best he did, for sure. But after watching the movie on TV a few nights ago I hopped on marvel.com and google/images and just mulled through pictures of the Hulk keeping the one from the movie in mind. The one in the movie has the epitome of a brute; square face, little neck, huge jaw, and all together gigantic. But his face was still very very human like. It was more of a person then a 'monster'. And though a good amount of my Hulk images showed him as more of a giant green person the majority showed his facial features as a bit more exaggerated. Some a larger forehead or a elongated mouth/ chin. Some both, and I think for the new Hulk(s) they may do the same. Personally I would like to see less person in the Hulk and more monster.

(Reply to this)

fluorescentlightbulb writes:
on Feb 03 2008 07:32 PM

Hopefully he understands how much money will be put into the films, CGI, cast payroll, set designs, etc. besides, wouldn't it all be the same story, but with new villains? it will be the story of: The man that wants to find the cure for his condition. it will get repetitive by "The Incredible Hulk 3" besides, if there is more to find (the cure) wouldn't there be less Hulk in the process?

(Reply to this)

josito77 writes:
on Mar 20 2008 08:38 AM

everyones right first hulk had ups and downs but a HULK FAN WILL SEE IT ME BEING ONE OF THEM it was my favorite comic as a little kid and am willing to watch any film about him regardless of cast or writer as im sure all real fans can agree. so shut up and wait and see then pick it apart all you want if you dont like it

(Reply to this)

thatbadmother writes:
on Apr 29 2008 04:06 PM

I didn't read comics as a kid... as unpopular as it may be to say. I guess i just had better things to do. But who doesn't love the hulk? I was pumped to see Hulk in 2003, and i thought it was pretty damn good. I knew the back story from seeing some of the tv series in re-runs, but they had to put that in there for those who weren't super familiar with the character (the ladies). What did you expect?... they'd just jump into a story with the Hulk and not explain how he got that way. If you look back at he original superman movie. Holy crap the first half of that was lame... I'm a teenager, my dad died, i can run real fast and kick a football into space (wouldn't the football have exploded if he kicked it that hard). Anyway, I think Bana is awesome. Troy, Munich, these are great movies. But, i did not like him in this. I thought his performance was cheesy. Granted, as it's been said, the script he had to work with was lame, but i think that had Norton been in the first film it would have been a lot better. I'm looking forward to this film, although i think many of you are going to be disappointed with the frequency of the hulks appearance in this film. Everything i've read says that he shows up for a 20 minute fight at the end and that's about it. Anyway, with Norton in this film it should be GREAT!!!

(Reply to this)