So recently I had the opportunity to purchase the DVD of The Incredible Hulk. I own Ang Lee's version, and I have come to appreciate both. I think they're both incomplete films, and between the two of them, a complete version exists somewhere...alas, I have no real preference over either one of them. I think Ang Lee's film is splendidly experimental, with a real emphasis on character and story, but it is slightly over-indulgent and lacks the pacing or balance to become an even film.
The Incredible Hulk, on the other hand, has fantastic ideas, terrific excitment and a real engrossing main character (whilst I felt Eric Bana's Banner was just...unsympathetic) but fails on the terms of being a decent drama and character study. Almost as if the two films lack what the other has: Lee's film lacks excitment, but has plenty of pathos; Incredible Hulk has plenty of excitment, but a clear lack of proper plotting.
Anyway, I remember back when The Incredible Hulk was approaching its release date and rumors started to emerge that Marvel was making extreme cuts of the film that star Edward Norton was unhappy with. Now this wasn't the typical case of an actor being unsatisfied with his image, but a case of a true artist who was feeling like the contributions he made were being rejected and feeling the product would suffer because of it...and I think that's exactly the case with The Incredible Hulk.
Now, I'm not biased. I'm not a Lee fanatic who will bash the new version without pause. Like I said, I enjoy both films, but think both have flaws. However, with that said, I'm beginning to suspect Norton was right in his complaints. Looking over the DVD, I had a chance to view all the deleted scenes and behind-the-scenes featurettes. Never before in a film have I facepalmed myself to the extent of asking myself, "Why in God's name did they delete this?!". Now it is not all true with every single deleted scene, but like the deleted scenes of X-Men: The Last Stand, there was some material here that could have really benefited the film.
Take, for instance, the alternate opening, with Bruce Banner traveling in the arctic before he tries to kill himself, and ultimately being stopped when the Hulk within takes over. This is a short scene...two minutes, tops, but it does so much for the film: It shows Banner's inner turmoil (we flashback to Betty, injured, as Banner pulls out the pistol) and establishes the inner struggle between Banner and The Hulk persona...clearly making them two different personalities struggling for supremacy in one body. Plus, it's fantastically visual, with ice caps, mystic arctic skies and so forth. I had to ask myself, "Why was this cut?". Because it showed the main hero trying to commit suicide?
I think Marvel was too scared when it came to this film. They wanted to just put out an appealing, action-oriented product, and they did, but it really compromised the final product. Cuts like this only help reinforce Norton's stance on matters. They recongized the reception to Lee's movie and wanted to put out a product that they thought would please the masses, and maybe it did. I think, though, that little scenes that helped explore Banner's struggle and his relationship with Betty would have made the film resonate more, and it would have made the characters, especially Banner, resonate more with the audience. It would have made what was a decent film into a truly terrific film.
Again, this is my opinion. I did have the privilege of reading Norton's script before watching the film, and I was very disappointed at the scenes that were cut. I think some of the cuts made sense, but a lot really didn't. I can understand why Norton was so fed up. I think he just wanted a movie representative of the one he tried to make, and the behind-the-scenes are reflective of that. In the behind-the-scenes, Norton pretty much directs himself. Whilst the director, Louis Letterier, just sort of sits back and goes, "Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Sounds good."
I'm not saying that Letterier didn't direct at all, or that he gave insufficient direction, it just seems that whenever it came to Norton's take on the character, he was incredibly involved and detail-oriented, to the point where it seemed like he was directing himself. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, or to be unexpected: he did, after all, co-write the script. It's clear he had a lot of passion for the project. So, to me at least, his reaction at the final cut was understandable. And, to me, justified.
I would love one day to see an extended version -- one that stays true to the original cut Norton envisioned. I think it would be the superior film.
The Incredible Hulk, on the other hand, has fantastic ideas, terrific excitment and a real engrossing main character (whilst I felt Eric Bana's Banner was just...unsympathetic) but fails on the terms of being a decent drama and character study. Almost as if the two films lack what the other has: Lee's film lacks excitment, but has plenty of pathos; Incredible Hulk has plenty of excitment, but a clear lack of proper plotting.
Anyway, I remember back when The Incredible Hulk was approaching its release date and rumors started to emerge that Marvel was making extreme cuts of the film that star Edward Norton was unhappy with. Now this wasn't the typical case of an actor being unsatisfied with his image, but a case of a true artist who was feeling like the contributions he made were being rejected and feeling the product would suffer because of it...and I think that's exactly the case with The Incredible Hulk.
Now, I'm not biased. I'm not a Lee fanatic who will bash the new version without pause. Like I said, I enjoy both films, but think both have flaws. However, with that said, I'm beginning to suspect Norton was right in his complaints. Looking over the DVD, I had a chance to view all the deleted scenes and behind-the-scenes featurettes. Never before in a film have I facepalmed myself to the extent of asking myself, "Why in God's name did they delete this?!". Now it is not all true with every single deleted scene, but like the deleted scenes of X-Men: The Last Stand, there was some material here that could have really benefited the film.
Take, for instance, the alternate opening, with Bruce Banner traveling in the arctic before he tries to kill himself, and ultimately being stopped when the Hulk within takes over. This is a short scene...two minutes, tops, but it does so much for the film: It shows Banner's inner turmoil (we flashback to Betty, injured, as Banner pulls out the pistol) and establishes the inner struggle between Banner and The Hulk persona...clearly making them two different personalities struggling for supremacy in one body. Plus, it's fantastically visual, with ice caps, mystic arctic skies and so forth. I had to ask myself, "Why was this cut?". Because it showed the main hero trying to commit suicide?
I think Marvel was too scared when it came to this film. They wanted to just put out an appealing, action-oriented product, and they did, but it really compromised the final product. Cuts like this only help reinforce Norton's stance on matters. They recongized the reception to Lee's movie and wanted to put out a product that they thought would please the masses, and maybe it did. I think, though, that little scenes that helped explore Banner's struggle and his relationship with Betty would have made the film resonate more, and it would have made the characters, especially Banner, resonate more with the audience. It would have made what was a decent film into a truly terrific film.
Again, this is my opinion. I did have the privilege of reading Norton's script before watching the film, and I was very disappointed at the scenes that were cut. I think some of the cuts made sense, but a lot really didn't. I can understand why Norton was so fed up. I think he just wanted a movie representative of the one he tried to make, and the behind-the-scenes are reflective of that. In the behind-the-scenes, Norton pretty much directs himself. Whilst the director, Louis Letterier, just sort of sits back and goes, "Yeah, sure. Go ahead. Sounds good."
I'm not saying that Letterier didn't direct at all, or that he gave insufficient direction, it just seems that whenever it came to Norton's take on the character, he was incredibly involved and detail-oriented, to the point where it seemed like he was directing himself. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, or to be unexpected: he did, after all, co-write the script. It's clear he had a lot of passion for the project. So, to me at least, his reaction at the final cut was understandable. And, to me, justified.
I would love one day to see an extended version -- one that stays true to the original cut Norton envisioned. I think it would be the superior film.
Last edited:
