Jump to content

Talk:The Incredible Hulk (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title

[edit]

Per WP:NC, this article should be at The Incredible Hulk (film), but that currently redirects to Hulk (film). I think we need an admin to handle the move because regular users can't move articles where the destination already exists. Lord Bodak 12:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Madchester 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

The expected release date comes from IMDB. Some other info comes from the press release and cinescape report. Still looking for info about the reboot assertion, Ang Lee's involvement and the plot. Journeyman 23:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've revamped the article and cited just about everything. A lot of confirmed news came through Comic-Con. If I missed anything, feel free to edit. --Erik 20:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cast?

[edit]

Has any of the cast been revealed yet? Son of Kong

Not as far as I know. I have Google Alerts set up to pick up any news about casting news. Not sure about Eric Bana's return; his return is iffy at best among official sources. Otherwise, there's no talk about casting. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rumor that Dominic Purcell may play Bruce Banner in this one but he has not been confirmed yet. - Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.129.126 (talk • contribs) 13:13, November 30, 2006

That rumor only started because Purcell "hesitated" in a radio interview when he was asked about being cast in this film. That doesn't mean anything; actors and actresses can be ambiguous if it'll help get their name out there. In the future, insert your signature by typing four tildes (~) at the end of your comment. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To seal the deal, Purcell said it was just a rumor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liv Tyler has been cast as Betty Ross (MikeSims 9:06am, 5/3/07)

Your point is...? Alientraveller 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The production section mentions Doc Samson was present in Norton's draft. Does anyone have any confirmation that Doc is to be in the film and/or who is in the running? Radical AdZ 23:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for use

[edit]
  • "Hulk Director Answers Fans' Questions!". SuperHeroHype.com. 2007-02-02. Retrieved 2007-02-02. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Associated Press (2007-02-26). "'Hulk' Heading to Toronto for Flim Shoot". Yahoo!. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Associated Press (2007-02-26). "The Incredible Hulk to Shoot in Toronto". ComingSoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (same as above, just in case Y! doesn't save the article)
Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Visual effects, script info. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A really neat interview with the screenwriter, who cites lots of influences tonally and his excitement for Norton. Alientraveller 20:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some talk from the screenwriter. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Penn on the film's style. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth noting that this film is one of Marvel Studios' first two trailblazers out of ten planned films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligence" section

[edit]

And can the IP editor explain why this is necessary? Alientraveller 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff for anyone to look at. Alientraveller 19:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filming location and synopsis

[edit]

ComingSoon.net has mentioned New York City as a shooting location as well as a synopsis that relates to the location. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influence

[edit]

IGN: "Both he and Leterrier pointed to the Return of the Monster story arc as inspiration." What is this story arc, and can it be included? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already included as it was Bruce Jones' first arc on The Incredible Hulk. Alientraveller 15:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I didn't find "Return of the Monster" anywhere, so I wasn't sure. Was catching up with Comic-Con news coverage, and the connection's been really bad this morning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots

[edit]

Does anyone actually have any official screenshots available to put into the article? A teaser poster been released yet or anything? Defunct Lies 17:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Alientraveller 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a teaser picture of the Hulk (shoulders up) has been released. But people won't put it up.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

[edit]

It says his size wont increase when he becomes engraged..but how come the teaser poster shows the hulk actually quite big. DeadWood 11:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Producer Gale Ann Hurd said the Hulk will not grow in the film, like he did in Ang Lee's film: in which when Hulk was mildly frustrated at the start, he was nine feet tall, and having been abused and tortured in the military's tank, was around fifteen feet tall. I should rewrite it though. Alientraveller 11:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah i see what you mean. You mean when he gets angry he will be 9 feet tall thats it? DeadWood 19:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I certainly don't know how big he'll be, all Avi Arad said was that the Hulk wouldn't be *as* big as Lee's Hulk got. I guess nine foot would work though, unless he was pulling our leg and the Hulk is *fourteen* feet tall. Lol. Alientraveller 10:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! It would look silly if he didnt grow at all. It would just look like a green edward norton :L DeadWood 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines

[edit]

Third opinion

[edit]

A third opinion was requested for a disagreement about overlinking. The original request can be seen here.

Edward Norton is linked to on every other section of that page, which in itself seems excessive. However, I do think that the infobox is one of the more important parts of the page, so I'm of the opinion that the link should be in the infobox and perhaps in the Cast section as well, but all the other places seem excessive. Side note: If you want to argue about overlinking, this page seems rife with it. All of the main cast is linked to multiple times. Keven Feige isn't wikilinked in the infobox, yet he is linked to in the Production section. (It's a red link, too.) — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MOSLINKS#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?, "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." How does this page overlink? Each item is wiki-linked in its first occurrence in each section and not linked again in that section. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But then why is there no link in the infobox? Are you counting the infobox as a part of the introduction? Seems like the infobox is the first place people look for information, so there should be a link there. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Norton is already wiki-linked under "Screenplay:" a few lines above, which is the situation. For example, if a certain celebrity writes, produces, and stars in his own film, each instance of him being wiki-linked in the Infobox Film template would not be necessary. In this case, Norton writes part of the script and stars in the film. Considering the density of names in the template, the argument has been that it's not necessary to wiki-link to him again after his writing credit. Annonymous believes otherwise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright. I missed that first link, so I'll withdraw my argument. It's fine the way it is now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys seem to be forgetting that just about every section with someone who is writer, director and actor that both the director and actor parts are always linked. Yes, if the director is linked than theres no reason to link the writer, but regardless the actor section is always linked.annoynmous 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"...but regardless the actor section is always linked." According to what? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to WP:OVERLINK, under Template:Infobox Film#Parameters, it says, "Note 2: Do not link to an article more than once in the infobox." I do not believe that there is an argument in your case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean according to what, according to every single wikipedia article with an actor/director, just look it up. I don't understand how does linking to edward nortons name in the article harm the article. annoynmous 19:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.69.65 (talk) [reply]
Another opinion. Although I'm not an 'uninterested third party', but a sometimes editor of this page, I also oppose overlinking. I'm not even a fan of excessive serial linking in succeeding sections of an article, but once in the prose and once in the infobox, and that's about it. I can accept a third link in the casting list, as that's the one section of an article people might jump to directly and hope to bounce out from, a la "Oooh... that dude who was in that one movie with the green guy... hold on... Oh, right, Lou Ferrigno... click... see, I TOLD you he was the Hulk in that show about that OTHER, totally different green guy". We're not trying to replace IMDb, but it happens. But twice in the infobox is just ridiculous. Let us avoid that. ThuranX 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel or no?

[edit]

This is a constant problem on this page, and on related pages, such as the Hulk film page, and the Marvel Comic Film template. Given the most recent citations include Ed Norton as writer, rewritign to specifically distance this film from the 2004 film, and comments about how they're not going to redo the origin, but will rely on the audience understanding of the basic concept of the character, and tweak as needed, I have to think that this is more of a reboot than a sequel. they earlier made it clear that it's as much a reboot as a sequel, and then later, we get these rewrite quotes and so on. We need a consensus on this. Frankly, assuming the audience knows the basics, and tweaking as needed is no different than what Nolan did. this constnat reverting across the project is getting tendentious. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the most honest quote from the director's interview I could find in the Wizard interview:
It sounds like Leterrier has contradicted himself, but he has made it open-ended for both fans of Lee's Hulk and the people who disliked it. As Wikipedia is neutral, we should link each film in the other's infobox, but it is the article who has to show how unlike each other they are. The Marvel Template however, makes its point clear by seperating films that did not get a direct sequel. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing contradictory there. Like I said, it's been made clear that this is a passive reboot. Instead of redoingthe origin, they'll just give the audience the 'new' facts they need to tell their story. Leterrier at no point disputed that this is a relaunch. As such, this is NOT a sequel, but a relaunch which doesn't assume the audience are idiots with no memory. that citation alone establishes that it's a new franchise. Coupled with the others we have, like Norton's rewriting to distance the two, and others about exactly what I said about not retelling the origin, I think it's safe to assert this is a do-over within this article and the template. ThuranX (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that it's something new -- instead of rebooting to an origin story, it seems to reboot right into the main story. I'll be fine with treating it as a stand-alone film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if my opinion will still count, but I'd consider it a stand alone film, considering Leterrier implicitly states in that quote, "We don’t go against anything that the first one established, but it’s brand new, a fresh start.". So even if it references Hulk, to some extent, I have a feeling that there will be blatant differences that won't make it quote canon. Anyone remember the interview where it was said they'll have flashbacks throughout to explain the back story? Just a thought... -- Harish - 02:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True. I've begun to accept the idea of "reboot" rather than a "retcon". The only thing that still bugs me is that they're following on from the ending of the first film with the Hulk escaping to the Amazon, but that makes it as much canon as the TV series I suppose. Alientraveller (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Remind me that I've also read in several article that it begins 5 years after the Hulk went on the run... which doesn't help clarify. I admit I did want it to be a sequel, but like you I've simply begun to accept. -- Harish - 16:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically speaking...

[edit]

Seeing as it's possible (granted, not fact this far away) that Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk (and presumably the rest of the individual Avenger films) MAY make cameos of a sort between them, making them link and leading to The Avengers film... would they be sequels of some nature? I know it's thinking way to far ahead, but the Alien: Resurrection and Predator 2 articles where they link to AvP as the next film, would these (Marvel) pages link like that... or if the story sorta turns into one long story, would they become linear according the Wikipedia? I.e. Iron Man links Hulk as it's sequel, etc (in the infobox). Just curious, guys. Thought it'd be a nice light thought. -- Harish - 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As all of that would be nothing but WP:CRYSTAL, really. I have no idea how that would be handled, as these sort of franchise crossover seeries are a newer thing. In the case of an avengers film, IF it uses all the versions presented in the films, AND the producers cop to that, then yes. In the case of Aliens and AvP, its' demonstrably not a sequel, just 'the next alien film made' (Look at the timeline, it's like ,2750 or so in Alien, and later in each after, so, clearly, an AvP set in our time would be a chronological prequel, in universe, and out of universe, I'd say report it as a new franchise. What do we do with crossover films? We wait, and see how the citations bear it out. I don't see the sequel idea as inherently bad, but the context is REALLY going to weigh heavily on this. Let's also avoid turning this into a forum section.ThuranX (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, thanks. Sorry, thought it would be relative to Wikipedia yet a somewhat interesting convo, but thanks again for the opinion. Interesting thoughts. -- Harish - 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been confirmed, so I took the liberty of adding Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk to both films' infoboxes. Alientraveller (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Part of me feels like saying "sweet", but I'll avoid making this a forum section... :)
On a article-related note, it's notable that we're gonna be in for a tough time with the not-so-understanding editors. Are we simply gonna have to live with it, or is their a way to put it in the article so that they can understand? -- Harish - 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I see it's officially not official yet. -- Harish - 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

[edit]

Would articles about duvets and dinnerware be counted? -- Harish - 16:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Erik (talk · contribs)'s response at Talk:Iron Man (film)#Marketing (2), this isn't very important as most big movies sell this sort of merchandise. Alientraveller (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Had to ask in this article too, to keep in in line. -- Harish - 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk artwork

[edit]

Hey guys, just came across this piece of Incredible Hulk artwork at SuperHeroHype.com (you may notice it's the filling of the current shadowed outline poster for The Incredible Hulk). Is it worth adding it to the article? -- Harish - 02:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the current image of the Hulk in the effects section: it just shows a lot more detail as a 3D piece of concept art. Indeed, the teaser poster's silhouette is filled by that new image, but it's not a poster and trying to combine the two would make inappropriate fan art. Alientraveller (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, the image does show you the Hulk as the leaked Comic-Con video had, showing better detail. Although I wasn't sure if I came across that way, I didn't mean to want to replace the poster with this, or add it to the poster. I just thought it may be a good image for the article, and if not now then down the road. Though, now that I think about it you've made me inadvertently realise that it's not necessary to want another image at this point haha. I better calm down with my discussion points with the way they're going. -- Harish - 12:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't worry about it. Besides, that concept art wasn't leaked. Marvel wanted every fan to scurry off and get that image to be shown to the whole world. Alientraveller (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norton states it's not a sequel!

[edit]

I was gonna add this, unlike most sources I find, but to be honest I didn't know where it would be best to add it. Yesterday (23 January), The Sun highlighted out of an article from the next Total Film magazine where Norton discusses the film, and speaks strongly against it being a sequel ("First off it’s utterly unrelated to that film..."). Link: Ed dismisses Hulk connection

Happy editing... and yay, we can finally tell those whom still assume this to be a sequel to not waste time editing that it is! -- Harish - 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I revised the lead this morning to discuss it as a retcon. To be honest, Norton sounds like a liar when he says it has nothing to do with the last film even though reviews of his script showed it was set in Brazil. But it's just promo puff really: the important stuff is the article reflects it's an indirect reboot. Alientraveller (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I see. I actually wondered about that South American setting to be honest, I read it was gonna start down there (Brazil, as you pointed out). I just can't wait to see the film so I can actually figure what the hell kind of link this has to anything, it's so misty with the facts. -- Harish - 15:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

carbon emissions.

[edit]

Does it REALLY need to mention that? It just seems to be superfluous information, that really has no bearing on anything. I mean, really, who WANTS to know that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.3.193.85 (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD. The first two paragraphs summarises every important point in the article. The Hulk will become a symbol of green Hollywood. Alientraveller (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call that important. More like trivia to me. But hey, I'm just a Joe. What do I know right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.161.7.159 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely important, and in future I expect some more talk about it. At the very least, expect media jokes about the Hulk being a green superhero. Pun intended. Alientraveller (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Media puns aren't particularly notable, and since the only thing that we can cite is the cars they used, I don't think it needs to be in the lead either. I've removed it a few times from the lead. We don't need to recap a sentence with a sentence. If the section on the eco=mission can be fleshed out, then it should return ,but for now, it shouldn't be there; it's more a bit of near-trivia about production than anything more. ThuranX (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poster

[edit]

Came across a better version of the poster if anyone wants to upload it http://www.worstpreviews.com/media.php?id=551&image=1&place=posters&place2=poster 76.205.124.18 (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alientraveller (talk) 10:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Incredible_Hulk_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=390345680"