Q & A w/Louis Leterrier & Suggestions Box

[Sava]

Update: If he hasn't told you guys already...More Q & A's to come...perhaps in a month or so when Louis has more details he can share with us. You can still message him on myspace though or message him here.

Later.

AD, didnt you say you had other surprises for us?

 

[Spade]

Okay...everybody seems to be rather positive, so I'll take a change from my own positive personality and offer my expectations for this film.

First of all...no man-in-suit. Please. Dear God in Heaven, no. The Hulk was awesome to all the casual fans of the first film, and the growth of the Hulk perfectly illustrated the fact that 'the madder The Hulk gets the stronger The Hulk gets'. The CGI Hulk in the first film was perfect. I visually saw in the theatres a man who was so large that I could picture him flinging people into the stratosphere one-handed with ease. Nothing Neanderthal or small to him. The growth also illustrated how boundless the limitations on his strength were. If this Hulk was just simply a small update here and there of the original you would be doing this project a great justice. And please, limit the 'Talking Hulk'. I would personally be disparaged if I saw the movie just beginning in the middle of a battle with the Hulk doing nothing but smashing things and yelling 'HULK STRONGEST ONE THERE IS!' I have nothing against Lou Ferrignou, but if you really want him to do voicework make it only slightly larger in verbatim than the first film. Honestly, I would be happy to hear whomever did the voice for the first film again. This isn't the LF Hulk, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Second issue- character development. The first film was easily one of the most awesome Marvel films from that standpoint because of it. When I saw Bana I could visualize him perfectly as a distraught Banner conflicted with the demon within himself and the destiny written for him. Connelly was a Betty who actually made me invest emotion into the film. Nolte felt like the evil father who has some good vestiges left within him. Everyone felt like they were meant for the role, and the most important thing was that there was ample room in the plot so that the action that we did see was amazing once we viewed it. What I'm getting from alot of the news on this film is that we're done with character development and now we're going to see a Hulk who just smashes things repeatedly while grunting out lines every 5 minutes, which (if true- I totally understand how people can misinterpret the slightest things) would be a horrid idea for a sequel. Ang made an awesome masterpiece that I could really see as one of my favorite films, and I just hope the second picks up on that.

Thirdly, I suppose I should address said rumors. As I've said, what I'm getting from most quotes is that we're forgetting what made the first good and placating fans who thought he should have 'smashed more stuff' when the first was already visceral and action-packed as it was. I'm also hearing that it will be difficult to tell if it's a restart or sequel, which isn't a positive thought to me. That the movie version of the Hulk is drastically different from the comics today was great. We got to see a Hulk who could look mad after taking a shell to the chest and pensively pondering over his old house while looking realistic the whole way through. Bringing a direct comic-book feel would kill this film, as it has done to so many films that try to go tit-for-tat to every letter of the comics. I also have to question the validity of the Abomination in this film. I know the Hulk's Rogue Gallery is thin, but I think the Abomination is a bit too soon if we're following the typical trilogy format. It makes one wonder if the third film will be a rehash, which isn't a positive thought.

Well, that's my suggestions. Can't say this has gone off on a good footing, as I haven't heard a great deal of positive things for this film. I would be incredibly happy, however, to come back after seeing this film and be able to post on SHH about how very wrong I was.

EDIT: *sigh* Baka...should have posted this at MySpace...

 

[Stuart Green]

9/17/2006


Wow. I was surprised by Mr. Leterrier's reply. That was indeed awesome. I must admit that I was initially worried about the direction of this movie, especially since Zak Penn was picked as the writer. Don't get me wrong: I like Mr. Penn. I got to hear back answers from him on The X-Verse and he was a very nice guy. But after actually seeing "X3", which remains the worst movie I've seen from Marvel (and I mean no disrespect to anyone who actually liked the movie by writing this), I must admit I was very worried by the possible direction the film would go.

But Mr. Leterrier's reply was definetely reassuring, especially by saying he wants to deal with the tortured aspect of the character and making it darker. Though I do wonder how dark you can go with a PG-13 "Hulk" film, which is most likely what it's going to be, since we all know kids are going to want to see this like they have with most of Marvel's films -- the "Spider-Man" movies, "Fantastic Four", the "X-Men" trilogy, etc.

I do want to make it clear though that I love the aspect of a man-in-suit Hulk, by putting make-up and prosthetics on an actor for the Hulk. Many people don't want an actor in make-up to be the Hulk and I can see why they wouldn't, but that doesn't mean it isn't a bad idea. A lot of people didn't like the Thing make-up for "Fantastic Four", but they've improved on the make-up for the sequel and those who have seen pictures on the web have said the make-up and facial expressions by Michael Chiklis while as the Thing are much better this time around. Besides, I miss seeing how an actor play the Hulk to actually give the character an emotional performance as opposed to "Okay, now these tennis balls are representing Hulk's eyes for when we C.G. him in later -- look at the tennis balls and look scared, like he's going to crush you!"

I do like the idea of picking which method to use to bring the Hulk to life for the movie that Mr. Leterrier mentioned when he answered those questions before, whether it's C.G., animatronics or the mentioned man-in-suit. What I do hope, though, is that the C.G. used for the Hulk when needed is handled much better this time around.

Thanks for reading and have a great weekend everyone.



Sincerely,
Stuart Green

 

[Stuart Green]

Okay...everybody seems to be rather positive, so I'll take a change from my own positive personality and offer my expectations for this film.

First of all...no man-in-suit. Please. Dear God in Heaven, no. The Hulk was awesome to all the casual fans of the first film, and the growth of the Hulk perfectly illustrated the fact that 'the madder The Hulk gets the stronger The Hulk gets'. The CGI Hulk in the first film was perfect. I visually saw in the theatres a man who was so large that I could picture him flinging people into the stratosphere one-handed with ease. Nothing Neanderthal or small to him. The growth also illustrated how boundless the limitations on his strength were. If this Hulk was just simply a small update here and there of the original you would be doing this project a great justice. And please, limit the 'Talking Hulk'. I would personally be disparaged if I saw the movie just beginning in the middle of a battle with the Hulk doing nothing but smashing things and yelling 'HULK STRONGEST ONE THERE IS!' I have nothing against Lou Ferrignou, but if you really want him to do voicework make it only slightly larger in verbatim than the first film. Honestly, I would be happy to hear whomever did the voice for the first film again. This isn't the LF Hulk, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Second issue- character development. The first film was easily one of the most awesome Marvel films from that standpoint because of it. When I saw Bana I could visualize him perfectly as a distraught Banner conflicted with the demon within himself and the destiny written for him. Connelly was a Betty who actually made me invest emotion into the film. Nolte felt like the evil father who has some good vestiges left within him. Everyone felt like they were meant for the role, and the most important thing was that there was ample room in the plot so that the action that we did see was amazing once we viewed it. What I'm getting from alot of the news on this film is that we're done with character development and now we're going to see a Hulk who just smashes things repeatedly while grunting out lines every 5 minutes, which (if true- I totally understand how people can misinterpret the slightest things) would be a horrid idea for a sequel. Ang made an awesome masterpiece that I could really see as one of my favorite films, and I just hope the second picks up on that.

Thirdly, I suppose I should address said rumors. As I've said, what I'm getting from most quotes is that we're forgetting what made the first good and placating fans who thought he should have 'smashed more stuff' when the first was already visceral and action-packed as it was. I'm also hearing that it will be difficult to tell if it's a restart or sequel, which isn't a positive thought to me. That the movie version of the Hulk is drastically different from the comics today was great. We got to see a Hulk who could look mad after taking a shell to the chest and pensively pondering over his old house while looking realistic the whole way through. Bringing a direct comic-book feel would kill this film, as it has done to so many films that try to go tit-for-tat to every letter of the comics. I also have to question the validity of the Abomination in this film. I know the Hulk's Rogue Gallery is thin, but I think the Abomination is a bit too soon if we're following the typical trilogy format. It makes one wonder if the third film will be a rehash, which isn't a positive thought.

Well, that's my suggestions. Can't say this has gone off on a good footing, as I haven't heard a great deal of positive things for this film. I would be incredibly happy, however, to come back after seeing this film and be able to post on SHH about how very wrong I was.

EDIT: *sigh* Baka...should have posted this at MySpace...

9/17/2006


Hmm... I'm a bit surprised to read that you liked the "the madder he gets, the taller he gets" aspect of the first film, considering how many fans overwhelming have stated they didn't like that aspect of the movie, myself included. I admit the Hulk should be massive, but I love the seven-foot-tall version of the Hulk myself than the fifteen-foot version in the film.

I was also a bit shocked by some of the things you mentioned. A lot of the things you mentioned above were precisely what people didn't like about "Hulk" -- that it was too long, the gammasphere/nano-med combo origin of the Hulk rather than being bombared by gamma rays from Bruce's own gamma bomb, there wasn't enough action sequences and that Bruce Banner didn't even change into the Hulk until 40 plus minutes into the movie. Also, I hated was Nick Nolte's David Banner, because of the way he was written and that he was an Absorbing Man rip-off, as well as the Hulk dogs.

Seriously, when you think of having something for the Hulk to fight in his film debut, is an evil mutated poodle the first villain that comes to mind?

However, when I say shocked by your comments, I didn't mean it in a bad way. While I was very disappointed with "Hulk", I too liked the first movie, which can be easily misunderstood when I write about it.

Of the parts I liked from "Hulk", I especially loved the acting by Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly. They gave very good performances, as did Sam Elliott as General Ross. One of my favorite scenes in the movie, aside from the tanks fight, is the scene in the streets where Betty Ross calms the Hulk down and he reverts back to Bruce Banner. Aside from the CGI, I loved the entire sequence -- the music, the cinematography, everything. It reminds me of the comics where missiles and guns are useless against the Hulk, but the one thing that stops him and gets to him is the presence of the woman he cares for.

I really do have high expectations for the new Hulk movie and I have been waiting for the Hulk to return to the big screen since the 2003 film. One of the best things about most Marvel sequels, such as "Spider-Man", is that they only get better and better with each film. I'm certain the Hulk's next film will be even bigger and better than Ang Lee's and wish Mr. Leterrier nothing but the best when they work on the next one.

'Nuff said.


Sincerely,
Stuart Green

 

[Spade]

Hmm... I'm a bit surprised to read that you liked the "the madder he gets, the taller he gets" aspect of the first film, considering how many fans overwhelming have stated they didn't like that aspect of the movie, myself included. I admit the Hulk should be massive, but I love the seven-foot-tall version of the Hulk myself than the fifteen-foot version in the film.

I found it awesome that Ang found a way to visually make him boundless both in strength and fearsomeness. It only took one look at the Hulk roaring at the dogs up in the tree, gamma-irradiated and with muscles bodybuilders would envy, to convince me this was truly the Hulk. Plus, it gives the notion that he has no limitation without making him a 60-foot tall giant. I'd at least like to see some of the interesting things the first film started.

I was also a bit shocked by some of the things you mentioned. A lot of the things you mentioned above were precisely what people didn't like about "Hulk" -- that it was too long, the gammasphere/nano-med combo origin of the Hulk rather than being bombared by gamma rays from Bruce's own gamma bomb, there wasn't enough action sequences and that Bruce Banner didn't even change into the Hulk until 40 plus minutes into the movie. Also, I hated was Nick Nolte's David Banner, because of the way he was written and that he was an Absorbing Man rip-off, as well as the Hulk dogs.

The gamma bomb is sort of silly. I know I may be offending my fellow fans out there who are much more devoted to this character than I, but actually having a new yet believeable method that explains the Hulk's transformation was great to see for me. The very first transformation could have gone down better, though. As for the length, it needed it in order for the viewer to realize that the movie isn't all about the Hulk. The action in it was immense as it was- we see the Hulk running on the side of a canyon dodging bullets and swatting away missiles with ease, shrug off machinegun fire, grab a missile in mid-air like a Crayola, rip off a warhead with his bare teeth, go up against 3 gamma-irradiated beasties initially equal to or stronger than him and win, destroy the gammasphere barehanded, toss away a tank like a frisbee, survive a trip to the limits of the stratosphere, leap entire miles at a whim, take a lightning bolt to the chest, fight with a being of living energy, survive a fight with someone who was capable of stealing his ambient energy, and then survive a gamma charge. Spider-Man doesn't even do that much in his feature films. I just can't see where the fanbase says it wasn't action-packed. If the action was brief it was because Ang was making more than yet another monster movie. Not all his moves were smart- David Banner didn't work as well as hoped for a general audience that isn't used to thinking much during the movies- but most were done with the fanbase in mind.

Seriously, when you think of having something for the Hulk to fight in his film debut, is an evil mutated poodle the first villain that comes to mind?

No. That's why I said he has a small villain pool. Ang used the dogs to show how beastial the Hulk can be even against the most ferocious of animals. Really, would Hulkbusters done any better in their place? I just think that this could have been the opportunity film to set up a different mindset than the comics, which is what I think the first one excelled at. Think about the third for a minute- do you think anyone would consider someone like The Leader cool? In reality, outside of the Abomination most people are only aware of the Leader. I'm saying that if we're shooting for future projects we shouldn't put all cards in one deck. I understand the decision, but feel it's a move that has the possibility of hindering sequels.

However, when I say shocked by your comments, I didn't mean it in a bad way. While I was very disappointed with "Hulk", I too liked the first movie, which can be easily misunderstood when I write about it.

I totally understand where said disappointments come from; I may not sound like it myself, but there are elements to the film I can really see as being too open-ended in the hopes of giving the film depth. Like how the creation of the Hulk in a physical sense is limited to just a few snapshots of DNA extraction at the beginning, or how the father is sometimes shown to be a misunderstood man yet ends the film with so much evil done it's hard to see him as 'misunderstood' so much as 'abusive' and 'power-hungry'. For me it's a sense of incompletitude, which is what I'm hoping this film does well in filling in.

 

[The Kid]

i know

the guy is ****ing cool

he then wished me a belated bday and told me not to bother renting transporter 2 but to rent unleashed(he told me not the unrated version)

guys like him and faverua(ironman diector) keep me happy

I'll take that "amazing movie" as a promise.

Go Leterrier!

I just love what he said about critics and studio interns! LOL.

 

[Advanced Dark]

AD, didnt you say you had other surprises for us?

Yes in the making but I said give me some time on these. I'll let you know asap.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I found it awesome that Ang found a way to visually make him boundless both in strength and fearsomeness. It only took one look at the Hulk roaring at the dogs up in the tree, gamma-irradiated and with muscles bodybuilders would envy, to convince me this was truly the Hulk. Plus, it gives the notion that he has no limitation without making him a 60-foot tall giant. I'd at least like to see some of the interesting things the first film started.



The gamma bomb is sort of silly. I know I may be offending my fellow fans out there who are much more devoted to this character than I, but actually having a new yet believeable method that explains the Hulk's transformation was great to see for me. The very first transformation could have gone down better, though. As for the length, it needed it in order for the viewer to realize that the movie isn't all about the Hulk. The action in it was immense as it was- we see the Hulk running on the side of a canyon dodging bullets and swatting away missiles with ease, shrug off machinegun fire, grab a missile in mid-air like a Crayola, rip off a warhead with his bare teeth, go up against 3 gamma-irradiated beasties initially equal to or stronger than him and win, destroy the gammasphere barehanded, toss away a tank like a frisbee, survive a trip to the limits of the stratosphere, leap entire miles at a whim, take a lightning bolt to the chest, fight with a being of living energy, survive a fight with someone who was capable of stealing his ambient energy, and then survive a gamma charge. Spider-Man doesn't even do that much in his feature films. I just can't see where the fanbase says it wasn't action-packed. If the action was brief it was because Ang was making more than yet another monster movie. Not all his moves were smart- David Banner didn't work as well as hoped for a general audience that isn't used to thinking much during the movies- but most were done with the fanbase in mind.



No. That's why I said he has a small villain pool. Ang used the dogs to show how beastial the Hulk can be even against the most ferocious of animals. Really, would Hulkbusters done any better in their place? I just think that this could have been the opportunity film to set up a different mindset than the comics, which is what I think the first one excelled at. Think about the third for a minute- do you think anyone would consider someone like The Leader cool? In reality, outside of the Abomination most people are only aware of the Leader. I'm saying that if we're shooting for future projects we shouldn't put all cards in one deck. I understand the decision, but feel it's a move that has the possibility of hindering sequels.



I totally understand where said disappointments come from; I may not sound like it myself, but there are elements to the film I can really see as being too open-ended in the hopes of giving the film depth. Like how the creation of the Hulk in a physical sense is limited to just a few snapshots of DNA extraction at the beginning, or how the father is sometimes shown to be a misunderstood man yet ends the film with so much evil done it's hard to see him as 'misunderstood' so much as 'abusive' and 'power-hungry'. For me it's a sense of incompletitude, which is what I'm hoping this film does well in filling in.

Totally agree with you here, i loved the 1st movie with a passion, and cant believe people say its too long and not action packed enough is a joke, the whole 2nd half of the movie has more action in than the first X-Men and Spiderman films combined.

And i love the fact that Hulk grew in the first movie, and i just loved the CGI Hulk in general. As another poster said recently, some of the Hulks facial expressions, which generally told us how he was feeling at time, couldnt be done with anything but CGI. So keep the CGI please LL.

Oh and LL, i understand you're fed up with the negativity, but you have to understand it from our point of view also, i loved the first movie and i have wanted an Ang Lee directed sequel since 2003 and i have not liked anything coming from Marvel since, so i am and will be skeptical until i see the movie for myself in '08.

 

[Sava]

Yes in the making but I said give me some time on these. I'll let you know asap.

ok, cool.

 

[Rac]

Hi Louis,

I hope that you avoid recasting as much as possible and bring actors from Hulk to The Incredible Hulk.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Hi Louis,

I hope that you avoid recasting as much as possible and bring actors from Hulk to The Incredible Hulk.

Yeah i agree with this, only re-cast if you have no other choice LL!!!!!!!

 

[DACMAN]

HULK should be done as he is done in the comics. Simple as that.

 

[Immortalfire]

On the front page, those are some of the lamest answers ever.

 

[Advanced Dark]

These the only answers he could give. He said he'd be back in another month or so when he could share "jucier" details with us. For now be grateful he's shared some time with us and that he's taking suggestions and answering whatever he can. Favreau wasn't even this open when he first started chatting. Besides we don't want another X3 scnerio where everything is spoiled and ruined. He could make up BS answers if it would make you feel better. LOL I'm thrilled he's here and even if we get a few morsels of info out of those answers it's better than the void we had here before.

 

[Ions]

I'm thrilled he's here and even if we get a few morsels of info out of those answers it's better than the void we had here before.

Agreed that void sucked, something is almost always better than nothing. And atleast I got a chance to hear some other things, like his feelings about the previous film etc. Although I would like to know more. Especially over his desert battle reply "There's only one way out of this one and it's up..." response. I can interpret that both negatively and positively...
I'm a little less cynical than I was 1 minute prior to reading his replies though.

 

[Advanced Dark]

The "nowhere to go but up" quote is the only answer that's acceptable. Surely he doesn't want to direct a sequel to a film and give us less action, or action sequences not as spectacular as the original. He wants to put his own name on this one and his own style but up the action. That's what I took from his answer.

 

[DACMAN]

Well, however you look at it, I love the guy. It's nothing but an honor to think this guy cares about the source material and the fans enough to show up and speak with us. We should be greatful (In the history of films, has a director come to a web site to chat with fans about a long loved material to get fan thoughts on a film in progress?). Second, most of his work speaks for itself. He's a good director, even more so during action scenes. We can expect good action. Third,

Dear Mr. L

HULK is the strongest one there is. Let's see it. Thank you.

 

[Sava]

HULK should be done as he is done in the comics. Simple as that.

yep, like when he gets kicked in the gut by Batman and gets knocked the F**k out!!!

 

[Advanced Dark]

yep, like when he gets kicked in the gut by Batman and gets knocked the F**k out!!!

LOL

 

[Spade]

yep, like when he gets kicked in the gut by Batman and gets knocked the F**k out!!!

Don't forget Superman either; comic Hulk was cold-clocked by him easily. Could just be bad writing, of course, but I agree in a way: we should see something as exhilirating as the tank-tossing scene of the first with just as much realism within it to prove he's as strong as everyone knows him to be.

 

[DACMAN]

yep, like when he gets kicked in the gut by Batman and gets knocked the F**k out!!!

That never happened. He only had the wind knocked out of him.

 

[Spade]

That never happened. He only had the wind knocked out of him.

Still, you have to admit that Batman knocking the wind out of the Hulk is a very lengthy stretch of the imagination.

Either way I just want the film to be representative of the curious and child-like giant within while reminding the viewer that the Hulk doesn't throw up, he throws down.

 

[Casper Van Dien]

Very cool...

 

[Advanced Dark]

Hey Casper, nice to see you stop by again.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

^^

Is that the actor casper van dien???