ROTTEN TOMATOES: Edward Norton Wants Hulk Sequels

Edward Norton Wants Hulk Sequels

Compares The Incredible Hulk to Batman Begins.

by Jeff Giles | January 24, 2008

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.

The actor -- set to play roving scientist/part-time raging behemoth Bruce Banner in this summer's reboot of Marvel's Hulk franchise -- tells The Sun (working from a report in Total Film) that he initially didn't see himself in the role:

"When the phone rings and someone says, 'Hey, would you be interested in the big green guy?' there's that part of all of us that doesn't want to look like an idiot. There's the wince factor or the defensive part of you that recoils at what the bad version of what that would be. And I did that, basically. I said 'no' to it a couple of times."

And speaking of "the bad version of that," while Norton didn't come right out and slam 2003's Hulk, he emphatically denies any connection between the earlier film and his own take on the character:

"I think like Chris Nolan and those guys did with Batman, we just said: 'We're going to start completely with our own version of this myth or saga.'"

Wait, did he say "saga"? Yes, he did -- according to Norton, he went into The Incredible Hulk expecting sequels. Saying "the whole thing was to envision it in multiple parts," he promises fans that this summer's blockbuster is "definitely intended as chapter one."

Source: The Sun

Related Items

Movie:	Hulk
Celeb:	Edward Norton
	Christopher Nolan

(1-20 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)