Ang Lee’s Hulk: What Might Have Been…

A youtube video unearthed by io9 has shown a brief glimpse of an animatronic Hulk made for Ang Lee’s generally panned film.

In the description of the video, stevejohnsonfx says they have hours of footage of this model. I’d love to see more. I’m of the oppinion that theres not enough animatronics nowadays, and it can look a lot better then CGI in SOME occasions. However, anyone who thinks animatronics would have made the film better? I dissagree… nothing aesthetic could have improved it, i just feel the plot and acting was just too off.. Oh well, lovely animatronics all the same. Imagine what a full hulk could have looked like!

Comment with Facebook

About TMB Staff

You've got red on you...

26 thoughts on “Ang Lee’s Hulk: What Might Have Been…

  1. Loved both hulks tbh both had there good and bad points but yeah edwards latest hulk was better, its gonna feel very off for Avengers and seeing a new hulk face… but will see how it goes.

      1. Ruffalo is off IMO (but again he does well in the background of movies he’s not “Starring” in. Hence: little Rufallo, lots Hulk please!)

        The Joaquin rumor was interesting and seemed right for some reason. oh well.

  2. The 1st Hulk Movie was not as bad as people think. It was a movie using a comicbook as it’s source material. So how real can you actually make a comicbook based movie? When you watch these movies you have to suspend reality and accept them for what they are, comic books turned into movies. If not, you will always find something wrong with every comicbook movie that goes to the big screen.

  3. I think were done seeing The Hulk after the Avengers, Too bad cause he’s one of my favs.

    Ang Lee’s was a downer to watch in-between the action (only good action is the final scenes in the desert as said above) dont get me wrong , I enjoyed what he was trying to do, but the execution wasn’t there.

    that, Nick Nolte’s scenes as the abosorbing man (I think anyways) were terrible and hard to make out. not to mention the stupid dogs!

    Bana was lukewarm, but thats before we knew what Bana could do. (now it doesn’t bother me)

    LOVED Sam’s General Ross though!

    as for the Hulk “on the run” (part 2)
    they improved the pacing, look of Hulk, and tied in some Marvel easter eggs BUT failed to make it WOW us.

    overall I’m good with him destroying shit in the Background of the Avengers.
    just sayin’

  4. You are all way too critical of the Ang Lee film. IMHO he nailed the concept of the hulk having the powers of a god; to fly, to have unlimited life, to have unbridled power. The scenes of him jumping over the desert and the music score was the best, especially for that time period. The Tim Roth/Ed Norton hulk film lacked that in a big way, making the hulk weak and pitiful. Remember, the hulk beat Thor, who has the power of a god!! Come on people, wheres the love??

      1. Honestly i think Ang Lee’s Hulk looked and felt more realistic than Nortons. The story was obviously weaker and could you really believe that Bana/Connelly could ever be scientists? There are tons of bangning hot scientists out there right? Nortons Hulk just look like a video game cut scene everytime he showed up. We need the actors and story of the Norton Hulk with the look and feel of Hulk from Ang Lee.

      2. I agree, I always prefered the look of Ang Lees Hulk, sadly he also spent too much time showing images of moss growing on trees and crap like that, probably works well in Chinese art films but not in an action film.

        I did like the storyboard concept they used throughout the film, but it was definitely the story that let the film down. Wasn’t convinced with the actors except perhaps Sam Elliott.

    1. comic book movies now in days have to be more “realistic” to our world, they cant be like the old batman(comic), dont get me wrong i love old movies but now all this movies are representing the our present world, like iron man and the 10 rings/terrorist, if we go back to the old set up, they are going to look kinda goofy

      1. Can still be realistic and still be unreal. Many of the things Nolan’s Batman does are completely impossible, but he makes it look plausible.

        Introducing a Norse God and people with superpowers is going to stretch the Iron Man standard.

      2. Like any good myth I believe any story no matter how fantastical the elements within can be brought to the screen if done correctly. Look at cinema’s long love affair with the Vampire mythos. Look at Star Wars. The only thing that has to be realistic is characterization. The characters need to have traits that we the viewing audience can relate to. The characters can fly, be immortal and be 100 times stronger than normal but as long as they have human problems and concerns the public will suspend disbelief.

    2. There were some things I liked about the Ang Lee film and other things I hated. I didnt care for Nick Nolte, I thought Eric Bana was great myself and I will always love Jennifer Connelly in anything she does.

      As a matter of fact the whole origin story involving Nick Nolte and his poodle brigade was just bad, if they could remove him from the film it would be a much better film I think.

      I too like the desert scenes and the bounding Hulk, it was a good display of the Hulk’s savagery and power IMO.

    3. I do agree that there were some good things in Lee’s film. I also think it gets smacked around too much. It isn’t a bad movie by amy means. But the problem with the film is that the character of Banner is played as passive and uninteresting. When he turns intto Hulk (esp. in the last 45 minutes of the film) the film has more life.

      It’s a nice cerebral Hulk.
      The folks wanted more action.

      The recent film was much better in that area. Better FX too.

  5. hulk will never work on screen. Not as a main character. At least until they realize that making him so unbelievably huge looks rediculous and loses all suspension of disbelief.

    1. According to that logic NO superhero would be believable on screen.

      Hulk always was and always will be massive. Illustrating him as anything standard sized just wouldn’t be remotely accurate to the spirit and concept of the character.

      1. I hear what you are saying Rodney. Hulk was conceived of as being huge, he deserves to be shown that way. That doesn’t mean it will transfer well in movies. And no it doesn’t follow that “NO superhero would be believable”.

  6. It’s a funny coincidence that I just watched this movie earlier tonight cause I was bored and wanted to laugh at something. I had to stop after about forty minutes. The movie just made me sad. I couldn’t even laugh at it..

    I just hope they do the Hulk justice in the Avengers movie..

  7. Animatronics would have made Ang Lee’s version of Hulk worse. Ang Lee really messed up the Hulk movie period. I think CGI was the best way to go in regards to the Hulk actually being in action but like you said Ian the feel of the movie just wasn’t right. There was too much angst and father son babble for me. I wonder how they are going to play the Hulk in the Avengers movie?

  8. Wow, that looks pretty bad. The Hulk himself looks like an even more steroided out version of Duke Nukem. How they were ever gonna make the animatronics on this thing look fluid is beyond me.

Leave a Reply