Reflecting on two Hulks, as both mark major anniversaries
20 years ago this week Ang Lee's Hulk brought the pathos, while 15 years ago this week Louis Leterrier's Incredible Hulk dialed up the action
Film Features Louis Letterier
Some superheroes get multiple screen incarnations simply because they are challenging to capture cinematically. The Fantastic Four will be on their fourth iteration in 2025. The Punisher has been portrayed by four different actors, most successfully by Jon Bernthal on the small screen. Then there is the Hulk, who has been portrayed by four different actors; once on TV and three times in films.
This week marks both the 20th anniversary of Ang Lee’s Hulk starring Eric Bana, and the 15th anniversary of Louis Leterrier’s oft-ignored MCU entry The Incredible Hulk starring Edward Norton. Both had interesting takes on the character, both were a hybrid of the original comic series and the popular television iteration, and both struggled with how to bring the character to life on screen. One could argue that a combination of the two approaches might have created a more potent whole. But they both have their merits.
Comic book aficionados know that scientist Bruce Banner was originally transformed into the Hulk after trying to save a reckless young teen named Rick Jones who wandered onto a military test site on a dare. Banner shoved the kid into a trench but was irradiated by gamma rays from an experimental bomb blast that would alter his body chemistry when he became angry. Although that fantastical explanation worked in the ’60s, it would not pass muster in the ’00s. Further, while General Thaddeus “Thunderbolt” Ross’ tireless hounding of the Hulk was important to translate to the screen, the idea of Jones as a sidekick/confident to the Hulk (and later, a sidekick to Captain America, Rom, and Captain Marvel) was nixed.
The Stan Lee and Jack Kirby comics material was not the only source of cinematic sustenance for big screen green. Both the 2003 and 2008 Hulk movies paid homage to the television series by having Bruce Banner experiment with gamma radiation in his laboratory, then an accident in each case led to exposure that would transform our protagonist into the destructive green rage monster, particularly when provoked. It seemed more “realistic,” one might venture.
Small-screen origins for a big hero
One cannot underestimate the appeal and significance of the 1977 Kenneth Johnson-curated Incredible Hulk TV series on the psyche of Gen Xers, even if many episodes come off as silly today. The show deviated radically from the comics, but it became a hit that lasted five seasons and produced three TV movie sequels. After the Hulk became a part of his life, the renamed David Banner became a man on the lam not from the military but from a pesky tabloid reporter named Jack McGee who wanted to prove his existence and bring him to justice. Every episode found Banner assuming a new last name and taking on a new menial job and ultimately helping someone in need. In the end, despite any good he and the Hulk may have done, he had to hit the road again lest he be brought in. There were no other superheroes or villains present, although Daredevil, Thor, and Wilson Fisk emerged in the movies.
The small-screen Hulk clicked because of the great balance between Bill Bixby’s empathetic and gentle portrayal of Banner and Lou Ferrigno’s ferocious yet also sympathetic presence as the Hulk. Another important factor was the music by Joseph Harnell, whose forlorn piano theme “The Lonely Man Theme” became a staple of the series. And let’s not forget Banner’s green eyes that signaled that the Hulk was going to emerge! The 2008 movie utilized the eyes and the theme (in one scene), while Ferrigno had cameos in both films as a security guard. He also provided the intense bellows and growls for Norton’s Hulk.
Getting back to the movies, the writers of each—James Schamus, Michael France, and John Turman for Hulk, and Zak Penn for The Incredible Hulk—tackled the story and characterizations very differently. Bana’s Banner was less in control of the changes as we caught him at the start of his Hulk journey, and he was initially unaware that his father had experimented on himself and passed on the ability to absorb gamma radiation that would kill a normal person.
With his origin tale encapsulated in the opening credits montage, Norton’s Banner was further along in his story. He started out hiding out from the U.S. military in the mountain slums of Rio, keeping his changes under control and seeking to cure himself.
The lead characterizations were also very different. Bana portrayed more of a nerdy, less imposing Banner, whereas Norton learned martial arts not only for self-defense but for discipline to keep his anger, excitement, and heart rate under control. Bana’s emotionally pent-up scientist could not control the changes, but he liked the adrenaline rush he got from letting his inner Hyde out. The more self-confident Norton version wanted to be free of the monster within, and there was more of a King Kong quality to Leterrier’s CG portrayal of the Hulk. In both stories, his fellow scientist and girlfriend Betty Ross wanted to help him in his struggles.
Oddly enough, both films cost around $140–$150 million, and both just about doubled their budget at the box office. Neither was a massive hit. That’s not to say they didn’t have their strengths, but many critics and audience members found flaws as well.
Ang Lee offers a thoughtful take
In the case of Ang Lee’s movie, audiences did not seem ready for his metaphysical, philosophical look at a man who’s tortured by demons past and present. Especially after the more action-packed adaptations of Spider-Man and X-Men had hit screens in the previous three years. The Hulk did not show up for the first 40 minutes (certainly an old-school approach), but then dominated the second half of the movie. He also could make himself bigger the angrier he got. He’s the largest onscreen Hulk to date.
What made Lee’s version special is that he dug into the humanity of the characters, particularly Banner’s repressed childhood trauma. Thunderbolt Ross may have been a hardass, but he loved his daughter and begrudgingly acknowledged Banner’s goodness beneath the Hulk’s brutal exterior. Betty herself came to terms with her flaw of trusting the wrong people (like her father). She unintentionally betrayed Bruce and realized by the end that he needed to keep away from her because they would always be monitored. Glenn Talbot, on the other hand, was a self-serving bioscience executive who deservedly met a grim end. Banner’s own father David was not even concerned for his well-being, eventually using gamma rays to turn himself into a more surreal and tragic version of the Absorbing Man from the comics (without being named). This would lead to a titanic clash at the end in which the sins of a twisted father were visited manyfold upon the son.
Lee recently acknowledged that when he made Hulk in the early 2000s, there were fewer people around him with an agenda. The MCU did not yet exist, digitally driven superhero movies were still new ground, and he was given more free reign to indulge his artistic whims, which leaned towards creating an intense sci-fi/horror psychodrama. Sure, he had a big budget, but having come off the international success of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, he had some clout. While it was criticized for some of the digital effects, the overly bright green hue of Hulk’s skin, and a lot of exposition, Hulk is also a much better and smarter film than many people might remember. Lee’s occasional use of multiple frames in some scenes to replicate comic book panels was an interesting (if superfluous) choice.
Louis Letterier brings the action
By contrast, Leterrier’s rendition eschewed more of the philosophical ruminations that Lee invoked and focused on hard-hitting action which the director handled well. As Norton’s Banner struggled with controlling and curing himself, almost everyone around him wanted a piece of him. Cold-hearted jingoist Ross wanted his DNA to continue his scrapped World War II super soldier experiments, which he revived anyway to give the equally odious Captain Emil Blonsky the chance to become one. Blonsky wanted to take down Hulk and become the alpha monster who could crush anyone in his path—which he did when pumped up into the bombastic Abomination. Even the mysterious scientist Mr. Blue (aka Professor Samuel Sterns) who sought to help Banner through encrypted emails turned out to be an opportunist who was collecting and replicating his blood samples in hopes that he could win a Nobel Prize. He also wanted a taste of that Hulk power, and in the comics world he would become The Leader, a role actor Tim Blake Nelson will finally reprise in next year’s Captain America: New World Order. (Liv Tyler will also return as Dr. Elizabeth Ross.)
Being the second movie in the MCU right after Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk was meant to be part of a larger whole. Leterrier acknowledged years later that it was a stressful shoot. He had a year to make the movie and said there was no finished script. Norton contributed writing during production and reportedly clashed with Marvel execs which resulted in him not reprising the role. In the end, Leterrier had a leaner and meaner-looking Hulk—and still the most intense on-screen portrayal ever—that definitely captured the darker aspects of the comics character. He’s also a slightly smarter Hulk. But the film’s villains generally came off as one-dimensional in relentless pursuit of their nefarious goals.
The Platonic ideal—a smashing concept
Which then leads one to wonder: What if the intellectual aspects of Lee’s movie and the visceral impact of Leterrier’s had been combined? That would have packed a wallop. It’s a similar scenario to the two Exorcist prequels from nearly 20 years ago—if Paul Schrader’s meditation on evil had been married with Renny Harlin’s supernatural extravagance, that could have been something.
The widely embraced Mark Ruffalo version of the big green guy—through four Avengers films, Thor: Ragnarok, and now the She-Hulk series—has evolved over time where Banner can control his transformations and has managed to merge his brain with Hulk’s brawn. If Marvel can wrestle the rights from Universal for a Hulk solo movie, it would be exciting to see what could happen with a more multi-dimensional portrayal of the iconic character. It would also be nice to see characters like Doc Samson and The Leader arrive on screen, and for Betty Ross to be more than just a scientist in name. While she got an upgrade from her original comics role as simply General Ross’ daughter and Banner’s love interest, it would be an improvement to have her directly help the love of her life rather than find help for him. That hasn’t worked out well so far.
While many MCU fans have been pleased with the Hulk’s personal growth and character arc over the last 15 years, there are some who feel like the Hulk has been neutered and not allowed to show off his true potential, particularly in terms of expressing unbridled fury. This is where Leterrier’s sinewy version shines best. Marvel’s Multiverse could also open the door for other Hulks—and there have been many—so the possibilities for new interpretations of the character abound. And who knows, maybe someday Ross will become Red Hulk and Betty will become Red She-Hulk.
In retrospect, both Hulk movies have something to offer even as they each leaned in a different direction. Ruffalo’s Hulk and the MCU certainly owe them both a debt, particularly the latter film which has gotten some positive reappraisal. That being said, it feels like there is an opportunity for an epic new solo movie that can combine those different elements into something even greater. There are likely many fans champing at the bit for that.
Hulk smash! And devour shawarma.
52 Comments
Didn’t much care for either. Would be interesting to see Al Ewing’s take, The Immortal Hulk, adapted into a series. All sort of fun material there well-suited to adaptation.
C’mon, don’t be a Hulk-hater!
This. The ultimate comic book expression of dealing with the sins of the father, the long term impacts of PTSD, how a damaged person continues the cycle of abuse with different people, a bit of DID… all of it is fantastic. A+ comic of any character, for sure, and absolutely the defining book for the Hulk, who has always been one of my favorite characters. I’d be so, so psyched to see a Disney+ series that leans into the horror aspect of Hulk based on that series.
Yeah, it really has everything and presents so many juicy ideas that a talented team of TV writers would really enjoy running with and expanding on in a way that would satisfy both fans of the comics and a much broader audience. You could make SUCH a rip-roarin’, what the hell is THIS amazing thing, pull out all the stops pilot for it, good lord. Then take a step back for less expensive, more character-focused stuff until an explosive please renew me finale.The whole angle it takes so appealing to writers and directors, I feel like it’s only a matter of time before we get it.
Nah. Some comic runs are so great and suited to the medium I don’t want it to be shitted on for an “adaptation”. Look at Thor Love and Thunder. Somehow, they managed to shit the bed with two incredible Thor runs. And they completely and utterly ruined and completely shitted on Jane Foster Thor run.
“Ruffalo’s Hulk and the MCU certainly owe them both a debt”
Why?
I asked ChatGPT to argue which is better between these two films in no more than 150 words
The Ang Lee version of Hulk (2003) falls short when compared to “The
Incredible Hulk” (2008) starring Edward Norton. Norton’s portrayal
offers a more grounded and introspective interpretation of the
character, delving into his internal struggle and the consequences of
his powers. The film maintains a consistent tone and pacing, balancing
character development with thrilling action sequences. The Edward Norton
Hulk movie benefits from improved CGI and a stronger visual aesthetic,
enhancing the overall cinematic experience. In contrast, Ang Lee’s Hulk
suffered from inconsistent tone and convoluted storytelling, making it
challenging for audiences to fully connect with the character and his
journey. While both films have their merits, “The Incredible Hulk”
surpasses the Ang Lee version by presenting a more cohesive narrative, a
compelling performance from Norton, and a better balance between
character exploration and action.
That’s actually a pretty good interpretation.
Yeah, I feel weird about it, but I agree with most of that. I haven’t watched Lee’s Hulk in years, but I remember being into the emotional work and put off by, y’know, the Hulk-Dogs. But damn if ChatGPT didn’t really get at it there.
Between the Hulk-Dogs and those Ice Wolves from The Day After Tomorrow, the early 2000s might have been the pinnacle for Random Canine Baddie representation in film.
Don’t forget about the zombie dogs from the Resident Evil films.
This is a good example of why ChatGPT sucks. It scans as coherent, but doesn’t really mean anything. The best comparison is to a kid giving a book report on a book they haven’t read. I’m sure reviews of these movies were part of the training data, but even with that, let’s break down what it “said.” The Ang Lee version of Hulk (2003) falls short when compared to “The Incredible Hulk” (2008) starring Edward Norton.Subjective, probably something most people would agree with, but it had a 50/50 chance of going the other way.Norton’s portrayal offers a more grounded and introspective interpretation of the character, delving into his internal struggle and the consequences of his powers.Again, subjective, also 50/50.The film maintains a consistent tone and pacing, balancing character development with thrilling action sequences. Now we’re getting into the nothing of it all. This is every press release for every action movie. The Edward Norton Hulk movie benefits from improved CGI and a stronger visual aesthetic, enhancing the overall cinematic experience. With few exceptions, the movie that comes out later will have better CGI. Everything after the comma is padding. In contrast, Ang Lee’s Hulk suffered from inconsistent tone and convoluted storytelling, making it challenging for audiences to fully connect with the character and his journey.This is the previous sentence, but inverted. It’s more padding.While both films have their merits, “The Incredible Hulk” surpasses the Ang Lee version by presenting a more cohesive narrative, a compelling performance from Norton, and a better balance between character exploration and action. This is restating the previous two sentences, which is really just one sentence.In conclusion, the Hulks are a land of contrasts.
ChatGPT is wrong. Go figure.
Does two Hulks each having anniversaries give us some sort of Hulkiversarymania?
Within all of us are two Hulks, always fighting.
I’d take Ang Lee’s weird auteurist vision every day over the cookie-cutter factory-produced drivel of any of the current Marvel movies.
I dunno, I wouldn’t. Maybe if his weird auteurist vision had turned out better. They don’t make proper Hulk movies for rights reasons but give me Thor 3 any day. Marvel’s had a weak stretch but I don’t think “cookie-cutter-factory production” is the issue. If anything reigning in Taika Waititi on the last thor movie probably would have helped. Eternals was quite different, it just wasn’t especially interesting. I’m not sure what went wrong with Dr. Strange, rushed production maybe? But It didn’t feel cookie-cutter.
The fact is Marvel movies are just extended commercials for a brand. There’s no real cinema there. Ang Lee’s film at least took risks and did something different, even if it didn’t totally work. Artistic ambition is preferable to corporate mandates 100% of the time.
I don’t agree. I prefer a movie I’d actually want to watch. The Room was a product of unrestrained artistic ambition but that doesn’t mean I’m ever going to watch it again. I get the sprit of what you’re trying to convey, but 100% of the time is insane. In the end we should judge movies on the final product and not people’s intentions or artistic goals when making it.
“In the end we should judge movies on the final product and not people’s intentions or artistic goals when making it.”Not all successful movies are the same, and not all unsuccessful movies are the same. While I agree generally with what you wrote, there are movies that exist in the greys, and that’s what presents trouble for me. I think the debate around The Force Awakens vs. The Last Jedi is the same debate. TFA can be seen as a successful but derivative movie while TLJ can be seen as imperfectly executed but was not as designed around nostalgia, wasn’t just a regurgitation of a prior movie, and didn’t rely as much on cheap applause and winks. (Obviously, I prefer TLJ but) I think it depends on the day really which movie people would choose to watch. What I want to watch partly depends on how high or low the bar is that the movie wanted to clear.
Fair point, but TLJ at least crosses that threshold of “rewatchability.” Unlike that terrible third movie. That whole trilogy is most hurt by it’s awful conclusion. TFA isn’t especially interesting, but I’d be a lot more likely to rewatch it if I was invested in the trilogy, and it’s hard to be after that last movie.
I try to forget that Episode 9 exists.
But you only know you don’t want to watch Ang Lee’s Hulk because you watched it, so the question is would you prefer movies that are made to minimize risk that you won’t like it? That to me sounds like eating hot dogs every day. I’d much rather have movies where some of them I like, some I don’t (and I can inform myself via reviews of my likelihood of enjoying them before watching, al be it with no expectation that I would never see a movie I won’t like)I don’t think anyone is asking you to judge movies based on how hard the artist tries or their intentions. But I do think I would prefer a market that wasn’t so goddamned risked adverse, made by committee, *even if it means it produces more movies I don’t want to watch* and less movies I do. Because I think it would produce more movies I goddamn love as opposed to movies I’m simply not adverse to using as a way of killing 2 hours.
Yeah, I should have said re-watched. I have no problem taking a risk when watching something new. I agree with most of what you’re saying.
The fact is Marvel movies are just extended commercials for a brandWhich seems less like a “fact” and more like an opinion.
I agree. HULK is not perfect. It’s enormously flawed.But having watched it recently… my fucking god does it feel like… I dunno, an actual movie. (In all fairness, THE INCREDIBLE HULK has that vibe as well. A lot of modern cinematography is just so fucking bland.)
It’s a shame that Ang Lee didn’t execute the filmmaking well because I’m intrigued by the direction he was taking. Banner/Hulk dealing with his demons sounded really interesting back then before Nolan’s Batman trilogy kicked off the rise of the emo superhero, and sounds interesting now in stark contrast to the MCU tone.
Did anything go wrong with Dr Strange 2?I feel like I watched a different film to everyone else; I thought it was a ton of fun. There’s some brilliant set-pieces and beautiful imagery.And it contains the best scene in any post-Endgame MCU movie/show; Scarlett Witch fucking decimating The Illuminati. The level of satisfaction I felt watching that multi-verse/fan-service nonsense being wiped out in a matter of seconds was just… it made me feel warm inside.I adore the Spider-Verse films, but all this multi-verse shit needs to end. I hope Deadpool 3 puts the nail in the coffin of all that bullshit.
I liked it too, but a lot of people didn’t for whatever reason.
So you prefer auteurist drivel?
oh look, a commenter on the AV club in 2023 who thinks marvel movies are dumb.
You need a blend of both here, even if I generally agree with your premise. And it needs to be the right *kind* of auteur for the project.I’d rather see, say, a Mike Flanagan Hulk flick than I would a Wes Anderson Hulk flick. With Hulk, Lee missed the mark (IMO). To the majority of the audience, Hulk is a smash machine. Full-on fans of the character know there’s more to it than that, but the bulk of the audience wants to see Hulk smash above all else. In the first major motion picture, that’s what you lead with. What Lee gave us was like if the first Spider-Man flick had been 20 – 30 mins devoted to Spidey swinging around NYC and quipping, 80 – 90 minutes devoted to Peter Parker trying to crack the formula for web fluid.Getting more cerebral makes more sense as the second flick, IMO. Intro flick? Origin, pepper in some of the Brian Banner stuff, have him beat a villain through raw strength and an understanding with Banner, the end. Sequel? “Well, yeah, Hulk can punch things to death, but he can’t pummel his own mental disorders/trauma.” THEN you lean on the mental anguish.
Sadly, I think what you’re saying makes a ton of sense, but that’s if the intent was to start a franchise. Maybe I’m being naive about this, but I don’t really remember if the intent was for Hulk to be followed by a sequel. If it were meant to be a stand-alone, one-time thing, then that might explain why Lee didn’t follow a formula, which let’s be honest is what you’re describing. And the “formula” part is what many people have a problem with when criticizing the MCU.
I have a theory that the main impetus behind the 2003 Hulk was to retain rights to the character. Universal produced both the 2003 film and the TV series, which suggests the original deal for the TV series gave Universal the rights to the character for 25 years. They also distributed the 2008 film, FWIW.
I’d watch a Wes Anderson Hulk flick.“So you were in the Battle of New York?”“Yeah.”“Were you in the shit?”“Yeah, I was in the shit.”
For me the issue with MCU hulk is after the first movie he is explicitly a side character who is relegated to that role. So in theory hulk is a main character one of the original 4 avengers to get a solo movie in phase 1. However because of the rights issue he was relegated and never got that in depth look or if he did it had to be in other movies where he is a side character. Another problem was moving him to space because Hulk and banner work off best versus Ross. He just got left behind story wise
That’s true. In the Incredible Hulk, he’s a rumor. That carries over to the Avengers and then the Hulk is (mostly) under control in Age of Ultron and then he’s off-world. The next time he’s seen on Earth, he’s Banner’s mind in the Hulk’s body and wildly popular. We never really got the hunted and feared, rampaging Hulk.
Bixby>Ferrigno>Norton>Bana>Ruffalo
I liked TIH more than most people; it had a better looking and scarier Hulk, the best city-smashing superhero action you could get at the time, and a couple of villains who were worth a shit which was something early MCU movies didn’t have so many of.
Ang Lee’s movie is also nice, but it’s sort of a mix of “auteurist!” and “careful what you wish for, auteurist-wishing people”. I mostly like it, but it’s somewhat up its own ass.
Be that as it may, they cut Michael K. Williams out of all but a second or two of TIH. Some things just can’t be forgiven.It’s as bad as putting Christopher Judge in “The Dark Knight Rises” and not giving him anything to say.
I like both movies ok, but they both swung too far in the wrong direction.
Neither Hulk models were stellar, but for different reasons. I give credit to Ang Lee’s Hulk for having a little bit of Eric Bana in the eyes, there’s some life and a performance there. He’s also better composited into the live action plates. But he’s a giant green baby, his proportions and hue constantly change.
Letterier’s Hulk is more roided out, but strangely dead eyed and rubber-faced. There’s no performance or range, he’s more like a lifeless video game model than feature film lead character. The lighting and compositing in the university action sequence is so bad it’s distracting.They finally nailed the model in Avengers, perfect amount of the actor’s features and cgi monster man. Not for lack of the first two films trying, life-like humanoid CGI characters just hadn’t been perfected.
The one thing I remember about the Ed Norton Hulk movie is how he managed to get a script approval clause added to his contract. I think it was because he was a relatively big star and the movie was developed before Marvel Studios was a thing. So I think even if he had been a been a good fit for the MCU, I can’t imagine Marvel bringing him back with that kind of power in his contract.
From what I recall he really wanted the first Avengers movie to be everybody vs. Hulk. Not much of a team player!
Oh, that sounds interesting. I think I would’ve liked that more than what we got.
I quite like the 2008 film. It’s got a lot to recommend (and borrows from the really good early issue of Bruce Jones’s 2001-05 Hulk run). Norton’s great as Banner and the whole cast works quite well.If anything, it’s underrated in many ways.I went to a preview screening of Hulk 2003 with my friends despite having school the next day. We were all 16 at the time and so pumped for it after loving Spider-Man, X-2 and Daredevil within the previous year.I don’t think any of us entirely loved it. It’s got some genuinely great moments and interesting filmmaking but it doesn’t quite come together.
Hulk is also a much better and smarter film than many people might remember.Nothing smarter than Hulk Poodles.Remember, this is the more thoughtful, “auteurist” version of the story.
Poodles are known to be very smart dogs.
Doc Samson is in the MCU. He was in the 2013 Hulk movie, played by Ty Burrell, they can bring him on back and green up his hair any time.
For all its flaws, I very much prefer Ang Lee’s Hulk. The 2008 version is just a very typical popcorn movie. At least Lee’s Hulk was an effort to be creatively different.
Ang Lee’s Hulk is a Top 5 Marvel movie (understanding it’s not MCU) for me. I’d put it up there with the first two Captain Americas and Iron Man and, I dunno, something else that I can’t think of at the moment. I really think it’s great.
My hot take: the Ang Lee Hulk would be a lot better regarded if the foley work hadn’t been absolute garbage. The Hulk sounded like an asthmatic construction worker trying to double-time it up a flight of stairs, and it broke nearly every attempt at an action sequence.Letterier’s movie has a lot of flaws, but he got one thing extremely right from the get-go: in the opening beats of the bottling factory fight, you hear the Hulk before you see him, and it’s a sound that absolutely communicates that you should turn around and run fast in the opposite direction.
Ang Lee’s Hulk has a lot of problems… a lot. But you can’t deny it tried something different.The other Hulk is fine. But I HATE what they’ve done to the character since. They’ve turned him into a bumbling, comic relief dork. Ruffalo does what he can, but I hate that the character comes off like an annoying idiot now. That scene in Infinity War where Banner’s running around in the Hulkbuster armor and trips and falls on his ass is embarrassing to watch.