June
9Who Says the Hulk Isn't Big?
The dweebs may not like the effects. The star, Edward Norton, may not like the cut. And the blogosphere is steeped in bad buzz. So here’s what Universal decided to do about it Sunday night: Throw a party, invite 5,000 folks to a screening and celebrate “The Incredible Hulk” as an instant hit. Maybe even Edward Norton will show (he showed for the red carpet, which was green, but disdained the party).I always enjoy acts of defiance, so I decided to attend. And here’s the bottom line: “The Incredible Hulk” is a boffo comic book movie with a Godzilla-meets-Frankenstein climax, a “Beauty and the Beast” subtheme and a shrewdly ironic ending that only Marvel Entertainment could pull off.
The audience roundly applauded the set-pieces of CGI mayhem, as if to tell Comic-Con-ish doubters, “Get a life.”
To be sure, there were, with a negative cost of roughly $150 million and a gross of $132 million in the U.S. But Marvel Entertainment, which successfully rolled the dice with “Iron Man,” upped their bet on one more superhero.
But things kept getting in the way, Entertainment Weekly got an early look at the footage and pronounced its computer-generated effects “totally false-looking.” A dot com snuck in and slapped a “just hideous” label on the movie. The New York Times wrote a snarky piece reporting that Edward Norton, who’d been hired to star and also supervise a rewrite, disdained the final product and would refuse to cooperate with the studio’s publicity campaign.
Spokesmen for Universal and Marvel have remained adamant in defense of the film. The new Hulk, they insist, is both meaner and greener and he no longer changes to three different sizes, as in the first film. Besides, the Hulk remains a comic book superstar, up there with the likes of the Silver Surfer, The X-Men, and even (perish the thought) Spider Man.
In the new movie, Hulk alter-ego Dr. Bruce Banner emerges as neurotic and emotionally withdrawn as other superheroes. However unlike “Superman,” he is not scared of girls and, unlike “Batman,” he does not favor kinky gear. The studio insists he is a compelling character. Edward Norton, the serious-minded Yalie who plays him, apparently has mixed feelings.
He should stop worrying. Norton may not have the Downey shtick (as we’re reminded in a cameo), but Norton also doesn’t have to clank as much and his sequels will be rustproof.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
That’s Too nice, when it comes in india hope it can make a Rocking place for youngster.. hope that come true.
Posted by: invosotoDus | 10/11/2009 4:32:19 AM
wow. thumbs up from the reader. this is an interesting post.
Posted by: girlsVend | 7/21/2009 7:16:01 PM
Hey, stupidmatt_1! You grow up and leave haters alone! They can hate the Hulk all they want and there's nothing you can do about it. It's a free country, by the way.
If you can't stand any haters, you'll never get far in life. And if you get back at all of them, they'll get back at you.
Posted by: Hater for life | 7/20/2009 7:54:39 PM
nice
Posted by: lpjigynjvgfft | 2/9/2009 9:19:59 AM
lavidjio
Posted by: lavidjio | 1/27/2009 6:00:36 AM
Just saw The Incredible Hulk today and I thought it was awesome. It had a good storyline and the CGI was terrific. I grew up on Marvel comics and the Incredible Hulk was one of my favorite characters. Now I am almost forty and I still love the marvel movies. Hell, I took my wife with me to both Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk and she liked them both. However, she liked The Incredible Hulk more. The first Hulk movie was pretty good, but this second movie was off the hook.
Posted by: Rick | 6/13/2008 9:35:02 PM
Sounds like a chick flick. Ed Norton grew a beard because Marvel wouldn't pay for jaw implants. I saw the trailer, and I couldn't even tell that the Hulk was all fx; I thought it was actually acclaimed screenwriter Ed "I have no jaw' Norton in makeup. Loved the Juno cameo.
Posted by: George W. Bush | 6/11/2008 7:50:44 AM
Like a lot of others I grew up a Marvel comics fan. I was never really into the Hulk as a kid(that would be my brother)but that doesn't matter. Niether the Ang Lee version or the excessive whining about bad CGI from fanboys will keep me from seeing this film. Even if this one isn't to my liking I'll see another version of the Hulk if one is made. I enjoy the Marvel universe and will always show support.
Posted by: Ken | 6/10/2008 5:06:32 PM
I'm waiting for friday when the movie is released...i can't wait to see it...i'm a fan of the 1st movie...sort of... and this one seems to be a major upgrade from it's predecessor...i prolly spelled that wrong...owell...yay hulk...and yay stark...iron man was flippin awesome...can't wait to see the dark knight...and spider-man 3 was worse than xmen 3...later
Posted by: stupidmatt_1 | 6/10/2008 3:16:53 PM
Funny... Harry Knowles drooled all over this film and he didn''t get trashed by a bunch of people who haven''t seen it - and you don''t get much more fanboy than Harry.
Think about it: if the Variety critic likes it and the founder of aintitcoolnews.com likes it, maybe there''s a chance that it''s actually [gasp] good!
And just to add about Variety critics - they are merciless when a film is bad, so why would Peter hype this one?
Seriously, only an idiot [or someone who''s never actually read any other Variety movie reviews would even consider the possibility that one of the mag''s critics would ever endorse a film they didn''t like.
Grow up, haters. You''re giving the rest of us fans an undeserved bad name.
Posted by: Sheldon | 6/10/2008 12:58:16 PM
It''s a movie. If you''ve seen it and like or dislike it, thanks for the review... everyone else.. shut up. Your oppinion means nothing. Obviously not everyone will like this movie, but don''t get defensive because some people are still excited to see it. It''s a summer MARVEL movie. Of course people will be excited for it, even after the fantastic 4 movies, marvel studios still has it''s followers. To get mad at someone for liking this movie is retarded, watch it don''t untill you see the movie, your oppinion means absolutely nothing. retards
Posted by: you guys are gay | 6/10/2008 11:06:47 AM
I suppose I''m one of those that finds this article a little difficult to swallow, if only because of the ongoing "battle" between the "geeks" and "everyone else." I don''t mean to use so many quotes there, but I feel like we should be past the idea that there''s actually any difference between these groups of people. Everyone is a geek or a dweeb about SOMEthing...Peter, you''re just as big a geek about movies and the entertainment business as some people are about comic books or genre pictures or whatever. To insult the others just reflects poorly on the actual depth of your cultural awareness...which is frustrating, because someone in your position should be more open-minded to the different forms that fandom takes these days.
Now I think it''s great that you enjoyed the movie, but...like so many others on here, I would point you to the dozens of positive reviews that have been popping up around the web. The groaning was from way back when, and let''s face it...a certain amount of groaning at the beginning of a project has become the industry norm at this point. It just happens to be that the fanbase for these properties is more vocal in their active participation through the development stages than, say, someone waiting anxiously for their Kite Runner movie and screaming on the message boards about whether or not it''s faithful to the book. It''s a vocal minority, as you well know, and still...many of those people don''t actually WANT a movie to be bad, they just want to ensure a decent representation on the big screen of a favorite story or character. These movies sort of act as the access point to comic books for a lot of mainstream audience members, so if a sucky one comes out, it reflects poorly on the years and years of quality stories with that character that may exist in the comics. To see so many potential new readers turned away because of a poor adaptation can be really rough to witness.
I''m getting off track. I like you Peter, I''ve always been a reader, but opinions like this don''t bolster your credibility. They just come off as elitist.
Posted by: Shawn Bowers | 6/10/2008 10:50:01 AM
The problem with the Hulk is that he will always look like CGI. They perhaps should have done something similar to the TV show and gotten a bodybuilder to be the alter ego and then use CGI to demonstrate his strength like they do with Will Smith''s new movie. I would write the title but it says it contains a swearword!!!
Posted by: Cameron | 6/10/2008 10:17:11 AM
What a bunch of whiney sissies.
I''m so sick of "bloggers" being combative with "bloggers" or anyone else that doesn''t subscribe to their current pearl of wisdom.
The fact that this film is distributed by a giant media conglomeration means NOTHING in regards to quality. Getting frustrated at someone for thinking a product is good or bad based solely on said product is juvenile. Companies become "billion dollar companies" by creating product that the masses enjoy. Tough noogies to you if you aren''t one of the masses.
Peter''s blog had nothing to do with the ethical practices of said large corporations, or the plight of the polar bear
Posted by: Zofond | 6/10/2008 8:00:02 AM
The reaction at the screening last night in New York was much less appreciative and enthusiastic. In fact, the only thing that got unanimous applause was Downey Jr.'s appearance which was given away at Comic-Con. There was too much drama and not enough action... again...but it's still much better than Ang Lee's movie.
Posted by: misterglass | 6/10/2008 6:42:27 AM
KINGDEON - you fool. maybe you should read some comics before you assume what a movie will be like. To date only 2 movies have completely felt like they respected the source material and were decent movies in their own right where they made the transition perfectly. Batman Begins and Iron Man. the first hulk movie wasn't much like the comic, and this is more like the comic. Where Hulk is a hero, and he smashes things. And hiding was something in the TV show not the comic which it should be like. Stop with the assumptions. Only someone with ignorance would say it should only be based on the TV show, whereas someone alot more cultured would say it should be based on Peter David's run.
Posted by: messi | 6/10/2008 4:12:22 AM
*shrugs* you can think I'm a plant if you want dude. Nothing I can do there to change your mind. Honestly, don't go see the f'ing movie if you feel that strongly about it. I liked it, everyone I saw it with liked it, and we're in no way connected to the studio or marvel. Just fans. But if you want to miss out on a cool summer movie, no skin off my back. I still get to enjoy it. What gets me is naysayers that think because they get on the internet and say something sucks... that somehow makes it so. Guess what, no one cares. Get over yourself.
Posted by: re: Georgeofthejungle | 6/10/2008 12:27:16 AM
I've been coasting the net, looking for the type of review that will convince my non-comics, non-fan friends to see this movie.
Until now, all I've had was-
"Tony Stark being in it will just be the icing on the cake. Just you see... (crickets chirping)"
I can't wait for more positive 'non-fan' reviews to roll in, after opening day, so I can tell more normal people to go see this freakin' movie!!!
Posted by: Poor Richard Rich | 6/9/2008 9:43:37 PM
NERDS!!!
GEEKS!!!
DWEEBS!!!
UNITE!!!
SOMEBODY MADE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A ROLLER COASTER RIDE OF A FILM, THAT'S POISED TO DO GOOD OLE' JADE JAWS JUSTICE ON THE SCREEN!!!
NONE. OF. YOU. ARE. CGI FX ARTISTS. OR Film Makers.
Or Actors. (Or your average 'General Audience' members, for that matter.)
I AM. AND EVEN I CAN SAY:
THIS. MOVIE. LOOKS>
I N C R E D I B L E .
SWALLOW YOUR PRIDE AND SUPPORT HULK OVER HAPPENING.
YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.
;)
Posted by: Djomigod | 6/9/2008 9:39:36 PM
Another thing....the "geeks" were freaking out months ago, because they were looking at footage that wasn't completed yet. Many have now written glowing reviews about the movie, Edward's performance and the CGI Hulk, so how about a little journalism, you jerk.
Posted by: Amy | 6/9/2008 9:28:01 PM
Where have you been the last couple of days?!? The blogosphere is NOT negative, as I have read really wonderful, glowing reviews. Why don't you just wait for the movie, okay? You call yourself a professional writer?
Posted by: Cate | 6/9/2008 9:26:00 PM
The heading states, "unfiltered opinion." Such vitriol over a simple op-ed? How thin-skinned some have become.
Posted by: Joe | 6/9/2008 8:04:25 PM
It's not "just a movie" - to say so makes art and film criticism look awfully pointless, as this "it's only entertainment!" defense is only used for Bad movies that aren't fun or insightful to watch at all. Myself, I'm skeptical of Hulk, but may see it.
Posted by: dreary louse | 6/9/2008 8:01:20 PM
Again with the emotionally-invested and rude naysayers. What gives? It's just movies, folks.
Posted by: David | 6/9/2008 7:30:28 PM
Uh, Oh, Peter. You used the D word. Now all the dweebs are annoyed. And dissing a movie they haven't even seen yet! What a bunch of cretins.
Posted by: Larry | 6/9/2008 7:07:25 PM
By "it" do you mean Peter? God, he such a prude.
Posted by: CP-III | 6/9/2008 6:49:05 PM
it's amazing how so many feel comfortable judging and dismissing a film they've not yet seen...this type of simple-mindedness has reared its tiny head for decades and shows no signs of slinking back to whatever rock it resides under...granted, slighting 'the incredible hulk' in such a manner is certainly not as egregious as dismissing a flawed masterpiece like scorcese's 'last tempatation of christ', but the same sort of ignorant self-righteousness was at work then, and seems evident now...here's an idea: let us each form our own conclusions if and when we decide to watch the movie...and for the sake of perhaps elevating debate to some level of intelligence, stay away from brain-dead comments like 'i don't have to see it to know i won''t like it'...small children use this basic argument to avoid eating their vegetables, and adults are forced to repeat that age-old mantra: 'try it, you might like it'...
Posted by: scrnwrtr17 | 6/9/2008 6:46:41 PM
I saw the movie and actually was surprised at how good it was. The pace is non-stop -- I was sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time. The audience applauded when the original Hulk had a scene, when Tony Stark had a scene, and at the ending. The guy next to me was like: "I kept asking myself when it was gonna suck, and I kept thinking ti would, but it never did. So much better than the 1st one."
Posted by: jobob | 6/9/2008 6:27:41 PM
Will all the snide posters here who have only negative things to say about a movie they haven't seen yet, still be f*rting out of their mouths when the picture opens to BIG business.
It's just entertainment, folks.
Posted by: movie recluse | 6/9/2008 6:24:08 PM
everything about this article smells rotten. A gift to his buddies at the studio. Unbelievable. Try again dude. Ain't buying this suk-up.
Posted by: hotpotato | 6/9/2008 6:20:48 PM
Anyone who uses the phrase: "it was a lot of fun" is obviously a studio plant. Lame. Obviously the movie stinks. It stunk before and by the looks of the trailer it stinks again.
Posted by: Georgeofthejungle | 6/9/2008 6:15:29 PM
just go see the movie and have some fun...GEEZ!
Posted by: bill gordon | 6/9/2008 6:03:51 PM
This movie is based on a mix of the comics and the TV show (lonely man on the run theme) and I have to say when I saw it, I was really surprised at how great it was. Yes, I was a "doubting dweeb" beforehand. But I have to say that the performances that were brought to the table by the actors made the large CGI action pieces much more flavorful than the trailers can relate. It was a lot of fun. Well done.
Posted by: flash2000 | 6/9/2008 5:14:27 PM
Peter, I noticed you used the word "disdain" 2x in 2 paragraphs... Was that today's feature on your word-a-day-toilet-paper or something?
Posted by: Dan Jones | 6/9/2008 4:00:49 PM
Hey way to lead the valiant charge against the informed masses who actually have their finger on the pulse...how many blogs do you read Pete? How many of those silver-haired, brie and pinot 60-somethings at the screening have ever read a blog? Did you exec assistant type this up?
Maybe when they release the 3rd Hulk in 3 years they can do a limited release to the chattering classes...it's kind of akin to releasing a stale fart into a garbage bag, isn't it?
Thanks again.
Posted by: In Yo Face | 6/9/2008 3:02:44 PM
Did Peter Bart get to see his "Look America, I'm not wearing any pants!" pose before they put it up above this blog? I mean, geez, him calling anyone a dweeb is like Jeffrey Dahmer calling Kobe a dangerous $ex offender.
Judging by the comments so far, I also want to know what the over/under is on ol' Pete pulling the plug on user comments.
Posted by: Paul Smythe | 6/9/2008 2:31:12 PM
The only way Hulk will work for me if they create the movie based on the television series. Movies made from the comic book will always face challenges. I have not seen the new movie, but I got a feeling Marvel have tried from the comic book point of view again.
Just make the movie about a guy who turns in to a muscle man when he gets mad but not so big that he can not hide.
Posted by: KINGDEON | 6/9/2008 2:18:58 PM
You're watching the second movie based on the Hulk and calling people who like good f/x "dweebs"? A movie about a giant green superhero filled with CGI... and the people who demand it look less like a cartoon are the dweebs. And what are you going for... the acting? Okaaayyy. Get a life, Peter. You and the rest of the Hollywood snob-elites that attended your little industry suck-up-fest.
Posted by: Rex | 6/9/2008 1:59:38 PM
"Unfiltered opinion" indeed.
Couldn't agree with this last post more. Ah...the silly people in silly Hollywood.
Posted by: MovieMike | 6/9/2008 1:43:13 PM
You reckon a crowd of hand-selected industry suck-ups like yourself is going to get the last word?
The funniest part here is that you manage to think you're being defiant by showing love for a $150 comic book movie produced by one billion dollar corporation and distributed by another.
That's not defiance. It's just another example of what the blog has proven to be about time and time again in its short life: Defending studios, high-cost productions and big stars against the truly defiant...
Blogging started as a way for the little guy to have a big voice. You've managed to launch a blog sticking up for the big guy!
Well done, Peter!
-Daniel
Posted by: Daniel | 6/9/2008 1:41:45 PM