Sequels Why Mark Ruffalo?

[Wyrminarrd]

I thought that Norton was great in TIH and imo was a better Banner than Ruffalo. That said, Ruffalo delivered a good performance in the Avengers so I don't mind the change assuming that Norton really did demand more money or was a control freak.

 

[terry78]

Bana got a pass because this was the first time someone other than Bixby was playing Banner, he did all right, but he didn't come across as Banner to me. Norton was better because visually he was like Banner brought to life. Ruffalo basically nailed the way Banner would be after all these years of dealing with it. More cynical and accepting of it.

 

[Brian Braddock]

If he's going to wear the plaid shirt, he needs the bell bottom jeans to go with it

Dear God - there's enough excess material there to make another pair of jeans (!). How did people not have more accidents wearing those things back in the day?

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I always found in funny in the original show, there, that Banner would being wearing those, but when he transformed that the bottoms ripped, an the top part (with the tight fitted waist) would stay on

did hulks calfs get that much bigger, then his waist lol

 

[Tony Stark]

Ruffalo nailed the performance. It's by far the best big screen interpretation of the Hulk to date. The biggest thing is we actually see Banner being a scientist, where he's not just trying to work on a cure for himself.

 

[TheOriginalman]

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.

I don't know. My lady said that in many ways Ruffalo reminded her of Bill Bixby.

 

[CombatRock319]

Ruffalo nailed the performance. It's by far the best big screen interpretation of the Hulk to date. The biggest thing is we actually see Banner being a scientist, where he's not just trying to work on a cure for himself.

I couldn't agree more. He absolutely nailed the awkward, timid, scientist Banner. He wasn't intense, not even intimidating, which makes his relationship with monstrous counterpart so much more interesting. The stronger the contrast between Banner and the Hulk, the better the story is because when they are in conflict, the character THRIVES. I was nervous about Ruffalo at first, but I think he absolutely stole the spotlight. Best screen interpretation indeed. Norton is an overall better actor IMO, but Ruffalo was DEFINITELY a better Banner.

 

[KangConquers]

Ruffalo was a better Banner than Norton. To me this isn't open to debate. Maybe I'm being harsh, but I sort of think any justification of Norton's performance is done solely out of bias towards the actors for their work outside of playing Bruce Banner.

In terms of Bruce Banner vs. Bruce Banner, Ruffalo wins.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I just wish Ruffalo had worn some plaid shirts in the Avengers, and maybe had his hair a little more styled like Bixby. Plus the glowing eyes during the transformation - that was a must!

Haha yes, a plaid shirt would have been great.

If he's going to wear the plaid shirt, he needs the bell bottom jeans to go with it

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! You guys really want Bruce to look like a Brady Bunch reject again?! Sheesh. Just let him stick with the simple attire. It fits his personality as a doctor.

 

[Brian Braddock]

You dont get the whole concept of 'joking around' then? Because clearly, we were serious.

 

[jaymes_e06]

The OP is Ed Norton still pissed that he didn't get his way. Ruffalo brought Bruce Banner to life for me.

 

[Baneis8feettall]

Edward Norton is better actor but Mark Ruffalo suited better for the role. I will never understand why Marvel wasted Norton's talent on a character like Bruce Banner.He could be a great villain or something.

 

[CombatRock319]

Ruffalo was a better Banner than Norton. To me this isn't open to debate. Maybe I'm being harsh, but I sort of think any justification of Norton's performance is done solely out of bias towards the actors for their work outside of playing Bruce Banner.

In terms of Bruce Banner vs. Bruce Banner, Ruffalo wins.

This is exactly the problem. Edward Norton is a phenomenal overall actor, but his Banner just was not as good as Ruffalo's at all. The fact that we're even humoring it is kind of dumb.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Ruffalo was an extremely good Banner, he pulled off the role in a way that I don't think Ed Norton could have hoped to. Saying Ruffalo looked uninterested in the character is simply a misunderstanding of the nature of his performance. In the first film Bruce learned he was cursed with being the Hulk forever and that he had no way out, even by killing himself. He's someone who's frustrated at the world and all of it's aspects but can't die or do anything to fix it. Rather than brooding and being depressed he's simply learned to view everything as a joke.

"I'm always angry" sums it all up, he's always pissed off and frustrated with his life, but he's learned to live with it and find humor his world. Rather than being a boiling pot, he simply learns to let out his frustrations in a peaceful way, having control over his anger. However, he is always frustrated and understands the gravity of his life and can at any time let that anger out as the Hulk.

This to me is the peak Bruce's character can grow, and is part of why the Hulk isn't getting another stand alone film (Why Thor is, when I also think he's reached his peak growth and a movie about Hank Pym or Black Panther would be more desirable however, comes down to money). I liked Norton's performance and have a hard time relating it to Ruffalo's, but of the two the latter is superior in my eyes and those of the general public.

 

[storyteller]

Bruce Banner can grow much further then that. Also the HULK has a a character to. For the last decade writers have been writing Hulk driven story's. Banner takes a back seat to Hulks character development. There is so much for developing a character born in rage and the development between the two personalities. Hulk was well received because we finally got to see the Hulk have character. He isn't just pure rageahol.

 

[El Payaso]

OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!! You guys really want Bruce to look like a Brady Bunch reject again?! Sheesh. Just let him stick with the simple attire. It fits his personality as a doctor.

All people in the 70's were a Brady Bunch reject because they wore 1970's clothes?

And what clothes fit a doctor's personality? Shouldn't he wearing cheap clothes because he knows they can be ruined by hulking-out?

 

[Dark Raven]

All people in the 70's were a Brady Bunch reject because they wore 1970's clothes?

And what clothes fit a doctor's personality? Shouldn't he wearing cheap clothes because he knows they can be ruined by hulking-out?

Yes, all the people in the 70s were offspring of Mike Brady. He left his seed around everywhere, even if they were born prior to the 70s but just lived during that era.

 

[El Payaso]

So, why mark Ruffalo. I thopught the same when I heard his name. Why him, exactly? But after seeing the movie twice he is the only one bringing something new to the character after Bill Bixby. His acting was very good. In a more serious movie (Hulk movie, for example) Ruffalo could be really big as Banner.

Yes, all the people in the 70s were offspring of Mike Brady. He left his seed around everywhere, even if they were born prior to the 70s but just lived during that era.

 

[RamseyBoy]

Ruffalo was brilliant in this movie. A very subtle, nuanced performance. He wasn't uninterested, he was intentionally playing the character as aloof and withdrawn. But there was a few moments where you could see a playful glint in his eye. He wasn't playing Banner as a depressing saddo. He was playing him as a man who had come to accept the other guy and was constantly keeping him in check throughout the entire movie.

 

[Brian Braddock]

I'd cream if Marvel absolutely embraced the whole Bixby/Ruffalo thing and released a homage pic of this featuring Ruffalo and the CG Hulk:-

 

[Dark Raven]

Is Hemsworth nearly as big as Ferrigno? Or maybe Lou is still bigger? In that shot Ferrigno certainly looks rather average-sized.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Equal in height (6'4'') but Lou over Chris in terms of pure muscle mass any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

 

[RamseyBoy]

Yea, his lats are huge.

 

[Dark Raven]

I think Lou got smaller though as the series went on. When he was competing he was definitely huge. He was still big in the series, but started to look less impressive. He did bulk up again for the TV movies, but then his make up was awful.

Actually that shot looks like it's for the TV movies.

 

[KangConquers]

Lou peaked at 300 lbs. Hemsworth got upto 220 lbs for Thor. HUGE muscle difference there.

As for now? I don't know. Most people who get that big are always big, it just goes to fat a bit. I imagine Lou is still 250. He's just naturally thicker than Hemsworth, who is naturally lean.