Why Mark Ruffalo?

[Picard Sisko]

I understand that Ed Norton wanted a bigger paycheck, and refused to reprise his role as the Hulk. That was very disappointing for me, but I moved on. But why did they choose Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/Hulk? I think his performance wasn't bad, but it just didn't feel like the character at all to me.

He signed on for 6 more films, so it seems like he is here to stay. Why did they choose Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk?

[jaqua99]

cause they figures he could pull it off. And he did.

[Picard Sisko]

He looked uninterested in playing the role throughout the entire movie in my opinion.

[Boom]

I couldn't disagree with you more. His performance was one of the film's highlights for me.

Do not confuse subtle and understated with uninterested.

[Picard Sisko]

I think it was a downgrade from Ed Norton. Heck, I thought even Eric Bana was a more believable Bruce Banner.

[L0ngsh0t]

It seems as though you are the only one with this opinion

[Picard Sisko]

I'm the only one who posted on this thread, but I know many people who watched the movie and agree with me. It's all opinion anyway.

[warhorse78]

Well, Mark Ruffalo is way better than Norton or Bana, and he's here to stay, so get used to it!!!!!

[Picard Sisko]

Him being better than Norton or Bana is just opinion. Honestly, if Ruffalo was in the Incredible Hulk, and Norton was in the Avengers, I bet everyone would be talking about how much better Edward Norton was as the Hulk.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Him being better than Norton or Bana is just opinion. Honestly, if Ruffalo was in the Incredible Hulk, and Norton was in the Avengers, I bet everyone would be talking about how much better Edward Norton was as the Hulk.

And you'd be absolutely right. That's why I just laugh at the people who ***** and moan about recasts being the end of the world, when it's clear that the vast majority of audiences move right along with the switches.

But in reference to Norton, it wasn't that he refused to play Hulk again; it's that he and Marvel butted heads over the direction they wanted to take Hulk and the sequels, so Marvel fired him, point blank.

[flickchick85]

Ruffalo's Hulk AND Banner was the best part of the movie, imo. This is the first time they've ever managed to get me to care about Bruce Banner.

[Angamb]

Mark did a decent job, but.... he didnt look like Bruce to me.

Edward fits the role more than Mark, and there are many actors out there that have the look of comics/animated movies and series Bruce.

But anyway, it is what it is. Not all the actors are the best option, in my opinion, so we just have to deal with it.

[R_Hythlodeus]

because he's awesome and the best Banner to date. That's why.

[Silvermoth]

I thought he was wonderful. He's better than the other two because he brings that ruffled 'i've been through rough times' look. He was great.

[uniqueweasel]

Imo I thought he played it brilliantly, I liked the way as Bruce he always kept an even keel to his voice, and acting kind of sheepishly. Then he explains as he changes that it's because he's always angry, as though he's always fighting the urge to let go. To me he played that excellent.

[Chewy]

Because he was brilliant

[hopefuldreamer]

I think the nice thing about Ruffalo WAS how 'disinterested' he came across sometimes. He was detatched, and kept at this sort of mellow tone and pace that seemed exactly how someone would be if they were controlling anger issues. You'd have to become detatched and controlled.

It certainly wouldn't make sense for banner to be really 'interested' and hyper and not controlled.

And everything he said just sort of sounded really mattter of fact, which I liked too. He's past the initial freak out of becoming the Hulk and has accepted his 'curse' and is doing the best he can with it.

He was putting up no false pretenses, not worrying about protecting people's feelings/trying to soften anything.

And I think Ruffalo totally sold that with his delivery.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Ruffalo was a great Banner, but Norton was better. Its not even about acting ability, its about the writing behind their respective portrayals. TIH Banner was isolation & pathos. Avengers Banner was quiet cynicism. So [in a heartbeat] I gotta give it to Norton. Ruffalo for me is the Lazenby of the cinematic Banners (Norton being Connery & Bana being Barry Nelson).

[Baneis8feettall]

Mark Ruffalo fits better than Edward Norton. He made most uninteresting character watchable in first half of the movie.

He deserves his own movie.

[Dark Raven]

Ruffalo wasn't disinterested in playing the role. He was showing disinterest as part of the role. There was a certain world weariness and cynicism about him, because he's been through much and rejected by many. Therefore he's guarded and doesn't want to come across as too passionate about things for fear of being burnt again or bringing out the beast. When Stark treats him like a human being, you can see a sense of acceptance and purpose at being valued and doing something worthwhile.

[Roose Bolton]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Ruffalo was a great Banner, but Norton was better. Its not even about acting ability, its about the writing behind their respective portrayals. TIH Banner was isolation & pathos. Avengers Banner was quiet cynicism. So [in a heartbeat] I gotta give it to Norton. Ruffalo for me is the Lazenby of the cinematic Banners (Norton being Connery & Bana being Barry Nelson).

Lazenby? If you think that Ruffalo was great then why would you compare him to the worst of the EON Bond actors?

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by Oberon sexton

Lazenby? If you think that Ruffalo was great then why would you compare him to the worst of the EON Bond actors?

Are you kidding? Lazenby was a great Bond, played him in one of the best Bond films of all time and tried something new with the character. He just had the problem, that everybody compared him to Connery.
And the worst EON Bond would be Moore. That's not even a question.

[Dark Raven]

If Ruffalo plays the role for a long time (and is currently the most universally praised), then he could hardly be considered the equivalent of George Lazenby (since Lazenby walked after 1 performance as Bond but some have mistakenly thought he was fired) and Norton can hardly be thought of as the Connery of Banners.

Although he's not a cinematic Banner, I count Bill Bixby as the Connery of the live action Banners.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Angamb

Mark did a decent job, but.... he didnt look like Bruce to me.

Edward fits the role more than Mark, and there are many actors out there that have the look of comics/animated movies and series Bruce.

But anyway, it is what it is. Not all the actors are the best option, in my opinion, so we just have to deal with it.

Yeah unfortunately that's just the way it is. But as I said before, if it was the other way around, and Norton was the one to play Banner in the Avengers, people would be praising him saying "he is the best one to date."

Ruffalo just does not feel like Bruce Banner at all.

[hopefuldreamer]

All I know is that if Norton had played Banner in Avengers, I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.