CaterpillarScheme Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I'm pretty sure in an interview, Leterrier said that there was gonna be no extended cut of the movie, that he was proud of the version that went to theaters and wouldn't have released it if he thought it needed to be improved. So I'm pretty sure it's just the theatrical release on the DVD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 So, I've done some google search, but have found no word on the extended original cut of Hulk that was almost 3 hours long coming to DVD. Does anyone know. The version that's going out this week is the theatrical cut, right? Is there official news about an extended version? Peter Jackson and Martin Scorscesee are the only directors that can get away with a movie being longer than 2 hours these days, doesn't surprise me it was cut back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 (edited) Peter Jackson and Martin Scorscesee are the only directors that can get away with a movie being longer than 2 hours these days, doesn't surprise me it was cut back. I'm not surprised the theatrical release was cut back either, but I would be surprised if they didn't try to cash in on an extended cut for the home video market, especially after the stories about Edward Norton being upset about the cuts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but director's cuts and such are good business, no? Edited October 18, 2008 by Reverend Jax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaterpillarScheme Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I'm not surprised the theatrical release was cut back either, but I would be surprised if they didn't try to cash in on an extended cut for the home video market, especially after the stories about Edward Norton being upset about the cuts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but director's cuts and such are good business, no? Yeah, director's cuts can be moneymakers when there actually is a director's cut. But Leterrier didn't have an alternate cut, he liked the version that went to theaters, he had no desire to make a longer version according to that interview I saw. I may be wrong, but I think the version that was so much longer and that Norton had problems with was never meant to be the final cut, it was just a screening during the editing process. People shell out the money for director's cuts for movies like Brazil when the director wanted a different version of the movie released, and the studio fucked with it. Ah, found it! Around 3:50 he starts talking about it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldier of fortune Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 The Bluray version of this film is stunning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 (edited) Peter Jackson and Martin Scorscesee are the only directors that can get away with a movie being longer than 2 hours these days, doesn't surprise me it was cut back. Tell that to Gore Verbinski. Or Chris Nolan. In fact summer blockbusters seem to be getting longer and longer every year. I don't mind, at least we get more movie for our 11 bucks. I think the dvd version has the extended opening (in the arctic with the Captain America "cameo") added back in but I don't know if there are any other additions. Edited October 19, 2008 by Silent Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 That's an extra feature I believe. It's not edited back into the film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Okay, so what was the arctic opening about? Other than Captain America laying on an ice covered beach in plane sight like a piece of driftwood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 From comingsoon.net: All-New Alternate Opening - For comic book fans, this may be the highlight of the bonus features. In it, we see Bruce Banner traveling by truck to the arctic. When he makes his way to a remote glacier, he pulls out a gun and prepares to shoot himself. But before he can, his pulse races and he transforms into the Hulk. Hulk then smashes the glacier and the blocks of ice fall into the frozen ocean....revealing the faint form of Captain America frozen in a block of ice. Too bad they couldn't keep it in the movie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jables Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Is that the artic cameo everyone talked about? Fuuuck. I had high hopes it'd be the first of many staple wolvy/hulk fights. As it is that still ASC posted was a blurry smudge on the screen. It'd wanna be a lot clearer than that in the disc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Is that the artic cameo everyone talked about? Fuuuck. I had high hopes it'd be the first of many staple wolvy/hulk fights. As it is that still ASC posted was a blurry smudge on the screen. It'd wanna be a lot clearer than that in the disc. God, that would've been fucking sweet. I think we have to wait for Fox's movie rights to run out before we can see Hugh Jackman slicing up some Hulk. I've seen other picutres and you can actually see some red and blue in there, whereas in the pics ASC posted it just looks like clumps of snow. What I'm wondering is what the fuck Captain America's frozen body is doing in the Artic, polar bears and walruses didn't play a large part in World War 2 so I'm not sure why he's there. Wasn't he found on a submarine at the bottom of the ocean or some shit in the comics? Edited October 22, 2008 by Iambaytor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jables Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Nah, block of Ice floating in the artic., and then in Ultimate continuity I believe he was in the himalayas or somesuch. Man, when the movie first came out and there was talk of an artic cameo I was positive it was gonna resolve the Ultimate Hulk/Wolverine x-over that was never completed. :( Fucking Damon Lindel-whateverisnameis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Nah, block of Ice floating in the artic., and then in Ultimate continuity I believe he was in the himalayas or somesuch. In Ultimate continuity he fought in a battle in...Iceland, I think...then got dropped by an exploding nuclear missile into the Arctic ocean. That doesn't explain why his block of ice is just layin' on top of everything there after 60 years, but at least he's geographically in kinda sorta the right place. It isn't much clearer in the film than it is in the screenshots. It goes by real quick and it's out-of-focus, but there's enough there that you can tell it was an intentional easter egg (albeit a really freakin' subtle one) and not just fanboy speculation making something out of nothing. Edited October 22, 2008 by Silent Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalHeart Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 FFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU Marvel Replacing Edward Norton in ‘The Avengers’ SAUCE (Check out the source for links) Despite Edward Norton’s eagerness to play the Hulk in The Avengers, Marvel has allegedly dumped him in favor of casting an unknown. Since its inception, Marvel Studios has deliberately and carefully been building towards a unique and ambitious cinematic event- The Avengers. From the very first tease offered in the post-credits scene of Iron Man, fans have been salivating over the idea and watching with cautious optimism as piece after piece falls into place. The Avengers was always going to be a challenging project for creative and logistical reasons but the glue holding it together was the excitement of seeing not only the iconic characters on screen together, but also the familiar faces of the actors we’ve come to associate with them — which makes this latest development appear to be the first major misstep Marvel has made with the project. Evidently, when The Avengers assemble on May 4th, 2012 – it will be without Edward Norton as the Hulk. According to HitFix: Marvel made a decision to hire an unknown, and they informed Norton that they won’t be using him in the film. And that is evidently that. It’s widely known that Norton has had something of a troubled past with the studio but this decision wasn’t made because he declined to be a part of the film. In fact, Norton wanted to play Bruce Banner again. He even recently met with Avengers director Joss Whedon and was reportedly so excited by what he heard that he told his agency to keep his schedule open. Prior to that meeting, his only stipulation was that The Avengers had to push the Banner character forward in some way. Norton may have a reputation for being difficult to work with but in the case of The Incredible Hulk and The Avengers it’s important to remember that what he was fighting for was his character and the story. He’s a huge fan of the comics and this stuff matters to him and he knows it matters to fans. Passion is only part of the equation unfortunately- there’s also the financial aspect of this situation. We know Marvel initially low-balled Mickey Rourke and Samuel L. Jackson for their involvement in Iron Man 2 and with a project as immense and intimidating as The Avengers, they’re no doubt looking to cut costs wherever they can. While details of how exactly the negotiations between Marvel and Norton fell apart are unclear, I can’t help but wonder if the studio felt the actor might just be more trouble than he’s worth. Norton’s performance was hands down my favorite part of The Incredible Hulk so this news is particularly troubling to me. There’s just absolutely no way I can see an unknown actor bringing the same weight and authority to that role. I understand the pressure to control costs, but the true value of this property is not in its budget or box-office gross- it’s the innovative execution of something that’s never been attempted before. As the HitFix article so perfectly sums it up: “Avengers assemble” is more than just a nifty slogan for a ball cap. It’s a call to arms for a one-of-a-kind movie event. Please… treat it that way. The rewards will be worth the effort. How do you feel about The Avengers minus Edward Norton? Is this a big mistake on Marvel’s part or do you think it’s possible that an unknown can deliver in the role? I guess this goes against the rumored plans to have Norton appear on stage as part of the Marvel presentation at San Diego Comic-Con. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 Piss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 booooooooo if the man was difficult, he prolly didnt wanna get ang lee'd. cant imagine he works for cheap, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Kaniggit Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 (edited) No Norton? That is unfortunate. But, that has been the trend for the last 2 hulk movies. Eric Bana was replaced in the re-boot by Norton. Norton's Banner was much closer to the current version of Banner in the books, he had a little bit of an edge to him. I thought he would have been good in the Avengers movie. I've read in a lot of places that he is a control freak, but in the end it was probably a financial decision. I am starting to think Marvel Studios is overwhelmed by this with the Avengers movie, I sincerely hope that is not the case. Edited July 10, 2010 by Dark Kaniggit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 SAN DIEGO - Comic book fans no longer have to imagine what it might be like to see all their favorite superheroes in one place. They got the chance Saturday at Comic-Con, when the cast of the forthcoming "Avengers" film took the stage. Samuel L. Jackson surprised some 6,000 fans gathered for a Marvel Studios presentation when he stepped out just as it was ending and started introducing the cast of "The Avengers." Jackson brought out stars Clark Gregg, Scarlett Johannson, Chris Hemsworth of "Thor" and Chris Evans of "Captain America." He then introduced another surprise guest, Robert Downey Jr., who brought out the rest of the all-star cast, including Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye and Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. Yahoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) Mark Ruffalo as the new Bruce Banner? Hmm...interesting. I still think they missed the boat with Norton. he may be a monster on set, but he delivers electrifying performances. Ruffalo is rather meh, neutral, in his performances. Also, he's kinda wimpy. But that goes much more w/ Ultimate Bruce Banner, which is more the tone I believe this Avengers film is headed for..so maybe Ruffalo will work out for the better if that is the case. Edited July 25, 2010 by Mr. Hakujin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hakujin Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Rumor has it Ruffalo's Hulk is getting a stand alone film and the plot will be Planet Hulk. Kind of a no-brainer seeing as Thanos is coming as well as Guardians of the Galaxy. Source here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Yeah and they're talking World War Hulk for Avengers 3 (here's hoping they don't introduce the Sentry before then) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 It'd be a shame if he doesn't get his own movie, but he's signed on for like 6 of em right? Hope it happens. Planet Hulk also leads to Skaar right? A Skaar movie would be neat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Yeah and they're talking World War Hulk for Avengers 3 (here's hoping they don't introduce the Sentry before then) please god no, an animated would be fun but that story does not warrant a live-action civil war was a mess but at least that could stand to be enjoyable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Rumor has it Ruffalo's Hulk is getting a stand alone film and the plot will be Planet Hulk. Kind of a no-brainer seeing as Thanos is coming as well as Guardians of the Galaxy. Source here. Yeah, but they're not talking about this new Hulk movie before Avengers 2, are they? So, this new Hulk movie couldn't be used to set that story up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted February 4, 2013 Share Posted February 4, 2013 Probably makes more sense if Avengers 2 was used to set Hulk up. Give them a reason to ship him into space (though that's the weakest part of the premise). Maybe he hits on Tony's girlfriend or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.