Why Mark Ruffalo?

[R_Hythlodeus]

Saying Norton was a better Banner than Ruffalo somehow is like saying Janeway was the best Captain of Starfleet.
SOME might feel like it is true, but you will NEVER find a majority who sees this way.

[Oberon sexton]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

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.

You're right OHMSS is one of the best Bond films, but it's Lazenby's charmless performance that stops it from THE best Bond film.

Say what you want about Roger Moore but he had charisma in spades, now HE tried something new with the character and it largely worked for the time period he was in.

But I digress we're getting off topic...

[hopefuldreamer]

Janeway is my favourite actually. But yeah, i'd except I'm in the minority there.

Ruffalo's portrayal was just more likeable, accesible and sympathetic to me. I never understood the buzz about Norton's Hulk after TIH - he just kind of bugged me.

[Dark Raven]

If Mark Ruffalo were in TIH, he might have very well been in The Avengers too, and there wouldn't be a recast. Although Feige's treatment of Norton was underhanded, the reason given was that Norton was difficult to work with and wasn't a team player and may have wanted more creative control. Whether or not that is actually true we will never know, but i'm guessing Ruffalo wouldn't have been a problem for Feige and TIH wouldn't seem so much like the black sheep of the Marvel movies as it would've been more heavily referenced than it currently is.

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by Oberon sexton

he had charisma in spades,

I disagree.

Originally Posted by Oberon sexton

But I digress we're getting off topic...

I agree.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

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

If Ruffalo wasn't in the Avengers, I would have enjoyed it even more (unless they cast someone worse).

[henzINNIT]

I was sad when I heard Norton wasn't going to be in Avengers. He did a great job and Marvel were so close to a full score when it came to the preceding films.

Once I saw the film, saw Ruffalo's fantastic Banner and the best realised Hulk to date, I got over it.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

Saying Norton was a better Banner than Ruffalo somehow is like saying Janeway was the best Captain of Starfleet.
SOME might feel like it is true, but you will NEVER find a majority who sees this way.

This is a stupid post. Who cares about "majority" when providing a personal opinion? Do you think I give a **** that billions of people love the Transformers films? I think they're absolute crap. Do you think I care that simple-minded moviegoers found The Tree of Life boring? I don't have ADD & watched it 6 times. Norton is a brilliant actor. He made Banner into something far beyond a two-dimensional comic book character. He made him an existential dilemma. People forget Norton wrote those aspects of his character. He didn't just show up for work & said "Yes, Sir, General Feige, Sir." Ruffalo's a great actor & his version of Banner worked, but the weight of Norton's rendition is something else entirely. If you can't see that, avoid interpretations that require deep analysis.

[Chewy]

Norton's Banner was a suicidal sadsack for 100 minutes. Yes, how deep.

Far deeper than a guy who's come to terms with his personal demons and just wants to do what he can to help others.

All you do is condescend, condescend, condescend. You can't argue your points without talking down to and insulting others. If the Avengers board had a stronger mod presence you'd have been banned quite some time ago.

[hopefuldreamer]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Norton is a brilliant actor. He made Banner into something far beyond a two-dimensional comic book character. He made him an existential dilemma. People forget Norton wrote those aspects of his character. He didn't just show up for work & said "Yes, Sir, General Feige, Sir." Ruffalo's a great actor & his version of Banner worked, but the weight of Norton's rendition is something else entirely. If you can't see that, avoid interpretations that require deep analysis.

So anyone who didn't like Norton's Banner is incapable of enjoying interpretations that require deep analysis?



FYI, if any interpretation of Hulk requires deep analysis and should be mentioned in the same breath as 'boring' to some people movies like Tree of Life, it's Ang Lee's. Not TIH.

[Alexei Belyakov]

Chewy, your opinion is crap to me so do me [& yourself] a favor by putting me on ignore. Also, I'd recommend staying away from complex films that delve into extreme isolation. TYRANNOSAUR & SHAME are good examples. You would deem their protagonists "hundred-minute sadsacks". (sighs)

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by hopefuldreamer

FYI, if any interpretation of Hulk requires deep analysis and should be mentioned in the same breath as 'boring' to some people movies like Tree of Life, it's Ang Lee's. Not TIH.

^THIS

Oh, and since it looks like AB is back again in full Troll mode, I'll leave this thread for at least a week and return when people stop quoting him.

[Radioactive1980]

Ruffalo was the best Banner ever, by far. I loved his performance and going into my first screening of TA I was still wishing it was Norton... but Norton never really displayed the scientific side of Banner, he just seemed too winey and self pitying. Ruffalo's introspective Banner recalled Bixby, he showed the scientific genius side of Banner and his Hulk was by far the best too. Both in terms of how Hulk was used- his action scenes/character development, and aesthetically speaking.

[Alexei Belyakov]

^winey & self-pitying? How would you behave if you couldn't have any contact with your family & friends because Homeland Security would throw you in a cell for the rest of your life? How would you act if you couldn't even live on American soil to avoid capture & had to roam in third-world countries like some bum? Why would you even wanna get outta bed in the morning if your entire day revolves around hiding & keeping a low profile whilst being completely isolated from any real human interaction? Yeah, winey & self-pitying sounds about right. People forget that Ruffalo's Banner was TIH Banner before finding the quiet acceptance he displayed in The Avengers. Its revolting to me that the complaints about Norton are really complaints about the state of mind his character was in, a state of mind prior to the character in Whedon's film. They're both great actors. One portrayed the horror of being banned from humanity by the curse, the other portrayed the vindication of rejoining humanity through the curse.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd go for that. I'd say:

Bixby = Connery
Norton = combination of Brosnan & Craig
Bana = Dalton
Ruffalo = Moore

[Alexei Belyakov]

Cherokeesam, when Ruffalo reprises the role, I'll promote him to Moore. For now he's Lazenby to me. And Bana is no Dalton. Barry Nelson. As for Bixby being Connery, I didn't wanna throw Bixby into the mix because through TV he had 5 seasons & 3 TV movies to craft his portrayal. Bana, Norton & Ruffalo only had 2 hours.

[Radioactive1980]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

^winey & self-pitying? How would you behave if you couldn't have any contact with your family & friends because Homeland Security would throw you in a cell for the rest of your life? How would you act if you couldn't even live on American soil to avoid capture & had to roam in third-world countries like some bum? Why would you even wanna get outta bed in the morning if your entire day revolves around hiding & keeping a low profile whilst being completely isolated from any real human interaction? Yeah, winey & self-pitying sounds about right.

True, but this does not change the fact that as a result Norton's performance was somewhat one dimensional and it also lacked in portraying Banner's scientific side.

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

People forget that Ruffalo's Banner was TIH Banner before finding the quiet acceptance he displayed in The Avengers.

I am not one of these people you speak of.
Ruffalo's portrayal was a lot more balanced, three dimensional and interesting and showed character development.

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Its revolting to me that the complaints about Norton are really complaints about the state of mind his character was in, a state of mind prior to the character in Whedon's film.

Revolting LOL.
No my complaint is with the writing.
Don't get me wrong I love TIH and I love how it was more dark in tone than any other MS film thus far, but I just think Banner could have been written a bit more interestingly.

[Oberon sexton]

I like Bana's version, he's not my favorite but I feel that he was very much suited for the particular extremely repressed incarnation that Ang Lee had envisioned, yeah I think the Dalton comparison works.

[Dark Raven]

Originally Posted by Alexei Belyakov

Cherokeesam, when Ruffalo reprises the role, I'll promote him to Moore. For now he's Lazenby to me. And Bana is no Dalton. Barry Nelson. As for Bixby being Connery, I didn't wanna throw Bixby into the mix because through TV he had 5 seasons & 3 TV movies to craft his portrayal. Bana, Norton & Ruffalo only had 2 hours.

Bixby had 1 1/2 hours in the pilot, and already there, his was the definitive portrayal. It's not like he only began to own the role after 5 seasons. He owned it during the first few minutes of the pilot. Most people universally acknowledge that Bixby's portrayal was so powerful even apart from the series that followed.

So only having 2 hours is no excuse for any of the other Hulk actors to establish themselves and their presence.

[storyteller]

Honestly physical appearance is iffy. You find one image for Norton and I will find you ones for Bana and Ruffalo. Also I feel that people keep expecting a character to act a certain way in a situation that is not the one they are in.

Banner in Avengers wasn't on the run. Ruffalo isn't going to act like he's on the run when Banner isn't on the run. To me he played the Banner that's got control of the situation. He's the Banner that knows the situation goes the Hulks way. He's the Banner that is the real threat if he ever got full control over the Hulk.

[Radioactive1980]

My take on the Banner/Bond comparisons-

Bixby/Connery- the original and many consider the definitive version of these character/s. These guys portrayals had a weight & validity to them that almost all subsequent interpretations lacked.

Bana/Lazenby- these guys only got to play Bond/Banner once and tbh they were not the best fit. Despite this there are a handful of fans who favour them as the best of the bunch.

Norton/Dalton- brought a seriousness or darker feel to the role that had been absent for some time. Dalton in his no nonsense Bond after the camp Moore years, and Norton in giving us a Banner on the run desperately trying to cure/control the Hulk.

Ruffalo/Brosnan are both the most well rounded interpretations of Bond/Banner. Both seem to be composites of the best bits of past portrayals of their respective characters. Brosnan mixed the humour of Moore with the toughness of Connery/Dalton, similarly Ruffalo combines the introspective Bixby-Banner with elements of a man on the edge ala Norton Banner in his first scene with Widow in The Avengers.

[Picard Sisko]

Originally Posted by Radioactive1980

My take on the Banner/Bond comparisons-

Bixby/Connery- the original and many consider the definitive version of these character/s. These guys portrayals had a weight & validity to them that almost all subsequent interpretations lacked.

Bana/Lazenby- these guys only got to play Bond/Banner once and tbh they were not the best fit. Despite this there are a handful of fans who favour them as the best of the bunch.

Norton/Dalton- brought a seriousness or darker feel to the role that had been absent for some time. Dalton in his no nonsense Bond after the camp Moore years, and Norton in giving us a Banner on the run desperately trying to cure/control the Hulk.

Ruffalo/Brosnan are both the most well rounded interpretations of Bond/Banner. Both seem to be composites of the best bits of past portrayals of their respective characters. Brosnan mixed the humour of Moore with the toughness of Connery/Dalton, similarly Ruffalo combines the introspective Bixby-Banner with elements of a man on the edge ala Norton Banner in his first scene with Widow in The Avengers.

Then who is going to be the Daniel Craig Bruce Banner?

[Radioactive1980]

Originally Posted by Picard Sisko

Then who is going to be the Daniel Craig Bruce Banner?

There isn't one.
Just as there isn't a Roger Moore Bruce Banner.

[Picard Sisko]

I know that Ruffalo signed up for 6 more movies, but does that include Avengers films, Hulk solo movies, or Marvel Studios film appearances in general?

[natey2k4]

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 it's just opinion (yours) that Norton and Bana were better than Ruffalo...

Ruffalo is an incredible actor. Bana was solid but had nothing to work with. Norton did a solid job but didn't feel like Bruce Banner to me.

I'd rank them;
1. Ruffalo
2. Bana
3. Norton

Ruffalo made me interested in The Hulk again. Thank god.