June
13
Incredible Hulk: Setting the Record Straight
The real question when looking at The Incredible Hulk--given all the sturm-and-drang in the media about Edward Norton--is what did he contribute to this movie?
Here's the real deal:
Zak Penn wrote the original script, which includes two pivotal scenes from his 16-year-old first screenplay for the Hulk, which was not used on the Ang Lee movie written by James Schamus. Marvel came back to Penn and wanted the two scenes in the movie: Bruce Banner jumping out of a helicopter to the earth below, not knowing whether or not he would morph into Hulk, and a lovemaking scene in a motel where Banner's rising heart rate becomes an issue. Both are among the best scenes in the final movie.
When Marvel approached Norton to do The Incredible Hulk, he initially declined. They asked him to meet with director Louis Leterrier (Transporter) to discuss his objections to doing the movie; there Norton offered some ideas as to where he'd want it to go. Marvel agreed to hire a screenwriter to work with him. This is totally normal. At this point Penn was off the movie.
Marvel realized they didn't have time to hire a new writer and asked Norton to do it, offering him an uncredited producer credit as well. With about two months to go before the movie started filming, Norton did a page one rewrite--knowing that he couldn't do anything radical, because sets were being built, locations found, etc. The entire Brazil sequence was already story-boarded.
So Norton mostly changed dialogue, filled in gaps of motivation and developed character. For example, the scenes in Brazil about finding a serum in the Amazon to cure him, and Banner's emails with Tim Blake Nelson, were Norton adds. Marvel agreed to shoot Norton's script.
The Incredible Hulk filming was well under way in Toronto when the team flew to San Diego to do a Comic-Con panel last July. When the panel moderator asked Norton to address his enhanced role on the film--which was supposed to be revealed on the panel, but not by him--both Norton and producer Gale Ann Hurd recognized that his announcing his own role as screenwriter would play badly. And so it did.
In post-production, when it came time to edit the movie, Marvel wanted a streamlined cut. Norton wanted more of his stuff, some 20 minutes worth. Norton is a serious actor who wants to be cool. Marvel convinced him to star in a movie on which he would have considerable input as writer-co-producer-star. A collision was inevitable. Their heated debate was leaked to Deadline Hollywood. Marvel had final cut, not Norton. He did not get his way. Some 50 minutes of outtakes will turn up on the DVD.
Post-Ang Lee, Marvel wanted the most commercial version of the movie, while Norton wanted something more nuanced.
As for the script, Marvel submitted both Penn and Norton (under his pseudonym, Edward Harrison) to the Writers' Guild; Penn (who had substantial economic incentives to want to win the arbitration) wrote an impassioned argument that Norton had not considerably changed his screenplay. The Guild tends to favor plot, structure and pre-exisiting characters over dialogue. Given the final version of the movie, they gave the sole credit to Penn. (Another early writer was seeking story by credit and didn't get anywhere.)
Interestingly, the reviews have been mixed, 61 on metacritic; some have criticized the movie for being light on character. Here's Todd McCarthy's review and a funny one in The Guardian.
When it came to marketing the pic, Universal's Adam Fogleson talked with Norton about his schedule and what PR they wanted him to do. The studio wanted to sell the Hulk, not Norton, finally--they avoided the traditional print junket in favor of a more superficial Adam Sandler TV-friendly media sell (not opening up to lots of questions about what Norton wanted the movie to be). Norton did Access Hollywood, Jimmy Kimmel (see below), lots of Internet stuff and attended the L.A. premiere. Then, as planned, he went off to Africa for his own purposes--and will do Japan PAs later this month.
This LAT Norton story addresses his image problems, which are substantial. He is seen as a gifted writer and actor, but opinionated and persnickety.
This Jimmy Kimmel spoof heads in the right direction.
Finally, my sense is that Norton's issues were with Marvel, which misled him into believing that he would have more control over the picture than in fact he did. Norton didn't take his issues to the press. When told about Deadline Hollywood, he had never heard of the blog. He's fine with Universal. Here's EW, with Norton's statement. Whether Norton will play Hulk again remains to be seen.
It's probably time for Norton to take charge via directing. (He debuted with the 2000 relationship comedy Keeping the Faith and has been developing Jonathan Lethem's Motherless Brooklyn as a directing vehicle.) The smartest movie stars--Clint Eastwood, Warren Beatty, Mel Gibson, Robert Redford, George Clooney and others--have figured out how to take control of their careers. Instead of fighting with studios over final cut, they earn it.
UPDATE: Norton is already producing: 2005's Down in the Valley and 2006's Painted Veil, plus Tim Blake Nelson's upcoming comedy thriller Leaves of Grass and a doc about Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Here's: my previous Hulk story and Norton vs. China and Warners on Painted Veil.
What Gamma Rays can really do.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
For what it's worth, Norton did direct Keeping the Faith in 2000.
Posted by: Peter T Chattaway | June 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM
"Norton is already producing a number of films, including Painted Veil and Down in the Valley"
That's no update! Those movies are already made and done with 2005, 2006. Past tense.
Posted by: Flibber T. Gibbert | June 14, 2008 at 03:45 PM
Great piece, thank you.
Posted by: Mister Snitch | June 14, 2008 at 04:21 PM
Excellent article - here is a very good review I found that touches on the character flaws:
http://calmixx.wordpress.com/2008/06/13/the-very-good-hulk/
Posted by: Brian | June 15, 2008 at 04:52 AM
Ironic, considering the jumping off helicopter bit was from the end of Ultimates volume 1. You know the modernized cinematic take of the Avengers.
Posted by: messi | June 15, 2008 at 06:33 AM
Penn should have written an impassioned plea to himself to stop writing such shitty scripts.
Posted by: most excellent superbat | June 15, 2008 at 06:39 AM
Huh nobody explain to me? Can i ask marvel studio or th producer about 26 final battle cut? Will it in extension DVD cut?
Posted by: Sean Ryan | June 15, 2008 at 07:50 AM
Ya, zack penn does suck. Fantastic Four anyone? X-Men 3? Who allows this man to write screenplays? Seriously.
Posted by: penndoessuck | June 15, 2008 at 11:23 AM
so he turns into hulk when his heart rate is up not when hes angry...hmm you wouldnt like banner when hes horny wouldya now......
Posted by: chainsaw | June 16, 2008 at 04:09 AM
Yeah, please keep Zak Penn away from script writing
Posted by: Aethyrr | June 16, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Why don't they leave the writing to the Marvel comics writers, the real people who know what the fans want.
Posted by: Ace | June 16, 2008 at 03:13 PM
Yes, that helicopter scene was in the Ultimates comics too (a little bit different, with some funny military men who said "lets give those aliens our new weapon", and tossed Banner out unwillingly), now that was a funny scene.
But I think Penn has some connections with the comics too, for example in the Fantastic Four 2 movie, the scene with the "No, i didn't play football in highschool, I studied and now you seek my help blabla" was in the Ultimate FF comic too, and that was a great monologue in there (in the film not so much).
So leave it to Penn, he knows the way around in comics, and know how to get to the Fans!
Posted by: Trib | June 17, 2008 at 02:22 PM
this move was abosolutly amazing!!!! the acting was great, the fight scenes kept me on the edge of my seat, and the plot was excelent. this movie is definatly worth seeing in the theatre. and my favorite part was definatly the end.....you'll find out why....go see it, you wont be sorry
I m watching Movies Here
http://www.80millionmoviesfree.com still i am Using Download Movies
Posted by: sjahds | June 17, 2008 at 11:53 PM
this new Incredible Hulk is a lot more fun than the first one with Eric Bana; as usual Ed Norton has gravitated to a "split personality" role...
Posted by: patrick | June 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Why Marvel made too many cut? Why? I have been told that 26 mins final battle through New York City are brilliant. Why Marvel cut it out?! Marvel neds explain to me why?
Posted by: Sean Ryan | June 23, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I won't make any comments about the film, I haven't seen it, but I think the article is perhaps a little disingenuous on the relationship between actors and studios? I am not exactly an 'Edward Norton' authority, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Marvel/the studio hired him to fix the script in the hope of securing him to the movie. I can easily imagine a situation whereby he would ask to have significant input on character development, dialogue and of course ensuring that the storyline would not be reduced to the simplistic cliches that sadly underpin too much of Zac Penn's work. Marvel/the studio would say 'of course, Mr Norton, go ahead, that sounds incredibly useful - after all, we only want to keep two scenes from the original script'. He would then beaver away fixing a substandard script, and basically rewriting it, only to have his work slashed at the end by nervous executives desperately trying to pretend they are not paranoid about character development given the problems of the Ang Lee version. At best, they lost their nerve on the film having a stronger identity, at worst, they knew what they doing all along.
Of course, the problem with the Ang Lee version was not that it tried to tell a story with strong psychological/character development, but that it chose to tell the wrong story. The idea of an emotionally stunted Bruce Banner with a serious fatherly chip on his shoulder simply did not ring true with lifelong fans. The key to understanding the Hulk as a character is that unlike the other traditional comic superheroes, the super-strong alter-ego is not the hero in any real sense. The Hulk is a symbol of rage, the enemy within that a rational scientist is trying to combat, and struggles to make his peace with, because that the Hulk comes in handy in tough spots. While Peter Parker/Spiderman sees his powers as burden of responsibility, the hero in the Hulk is not the Hulk, but Bruce Banner. He is a moral man hunted down by those who wish to abuse his powers for immoral purposes, and believes that the powers of science can help him regain his emotional balance, and bring his personality back together. His relationship to Betty Ross is supremely important, not because she is a symbol of love lost, but because she stands for emotional intelligence. He runs away from her because he wants to protect her from himself. But there is only so much science can do for Bruce Banner: the closer he can ever get to a cure is Betty Ross.
It's not a complicated story, but it is an appealing one, and it is turning the genre on its head in a way. Bruce is not an ordinary man carrying extraordinary powers, he is an extraordinary man strong enough to hold a line of personal morality and an ethics of care in the face of overwhelming odds. This is why the story appealed to me a child. Back then I had not read any of the comics yet, but saw the TV show. What always struck me about this version was that on the surface Bruce Banner was a drifter, but he ended up providing a moral compass in various situations of injustice. The Hulk would turn out to be helpful, but it was always Bruce who chose to a take stand in the first place, in the vain hope that he could resolve situations without getting angry.
Ultimately, the Hulk story told by Ang Lee did not work because it portrayed Bruce Banner as a boring guy who has very little awareness of what is happening to him, and doesn't engage properly with the inevitable consequences of the unstoppable anger of righteous man.
To go back to why I think the article is a bit weak, is that it has an under-current of collusion with studios over the treatment of the script-writer. If only two scenes were kept from the original movie, and the studios hired no one else because of lack of time, as the article suggests, I think it's fair to say that Edward Norton basically wrote the script. Any other conclusion sounds illogical to me. This film was clearly not penned by a vacuum.
Thus, it seems a bit cheeky for the author of this piece to suggest that Norton is basically being temperamental and narcissistic. I don't know him, so I can't comment on his personal traits, but I would take spin from studios with a pinch of salt when it comes to people like Norton, Sean Penn and the other Holywood polymaths. I'm sure no one would ever call Matthew McConaughey difficult: he's a good boy who does what he's told even if the movie's crap.
The conclusion of the piece is right in pointing out that greater control comes from directing and producing, but that's something Edward Norton has been doing anyway, and it's an indictment on Holywood, not the actors fighting for a better cut in post-production.
So is the new Hulk movie any good? I have no idea, but I have a funny feeling the best bits ended up on the cutting room floor. Logic dictates that when faced with overwhelming odds, the moral actor will try very hard to resolve the situation peacefully, try not get angry, and fail.
The day actors like Edward Norton have good reputations is the day I stop watching their films.
Posted by: Claire | June 25, 2008 at 03:58 PM
Well, this is the Hulk and not Hamlet. Norton probably took the writing and acting up a notch, but it's not worth blowing a gasket over the final cut. After all, this IS a comic book movie. And he'll have more input if there's a sequel.
Posted by: Dan Petitpas | July 09, 2008 at 09:04 PM