Zak Penn talks...Hulk sequel!

[Advanced Dark]

ZAK PENS ‘INCREDIBLE HULK’ MOVIE
Prolific screenwriter Penn shares scoop on mean green sequel

Posted November 26, 2006 10:30 AM​

Wizard caught up with Zak Penn, the screenwriter for “The Incredible Hulk” for the scoop on where he stands on the sequel to the Ang Lee-directed 2003 movie. Penn, who is profiled in the Wizard 2007 Movie Spectacular that comes out Dec. 6, shared his insight on where the next “Hulk” movie is, which is slated to be directed by Louis Letterier (“The Transporter 2”).

Penn submitted a draft for the original “Hulk” movie, which was rejected, but that script grabbed the attention of the current filmmakers. His original pitch, along with his success writing “X2: X-Men United” and “X-Men: The Last Stand,” earned him the gig.

“My draft of the first ‘Hulk’ opened with him already having transformed into the Hulk,” explained Penn. “It opened with him at a roadside bar with these guys picking on him and him saying, ‘Don’t make me angry. You won’t like me when I’m angry,’ and then transforming, and then you flash back to reveal how it all happened.

“Part of the way that this ‘Hulk’ came about is that they went back and read my draft. They went back through all of the stuff that they had commissioned and said, ‘This is more of the tone that we wanted.’ So it doesn’t really require us ignoring the first movie, but that said, there’s a lot of stuff in the first movie that I’m not even going to touch on.”

To read more about Penn’s “Hulk” movie and his plans for an “Avengers” film, pick up the Wizard 2007 Movie Spectacular on Dec. 6, featuring the full scoop on over 120 movies. The issue contains a 33-page special report on "Spider-Man 3," the first and most comprehensive look at 2007's biggest movie. The special section contains exclusive images, photos and information you won't find anywhere else.

But that's not all. Read interviews with the stars and creators of such incredible projects coming, including "Ghost Rider," "Transformers," "Iron Man," "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer," "The Dark Knight," "The Incredible Hulk," "300," "Stardust," "Watchmen," "Avengers," "Flash," "Fables," "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," "Shrek the Third," "Eragon," "Pan's Labryrinth," "30 Days of Night," "Hellboy 2," "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," TV's "Heroes," "Smallville" and many more. Check out interviews and profiles with top talent like Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Topher Grace, Eva Mendes, Todd McFarlane, Frank Miller, Neil Gaiman, Heath Ledger, Ali Larter, directors Zack Snyder ("300," "Watchmen"), Guillermo del Toro ("Pan's Labyrinth," "Hellboy 2") and David Slade ("30 Days of Night"), producers Lorenzo di Bonaventura ("Transformers," "Stardust") and Michael Uslan ("Batman," "The Spirit") and screenwriter Zak Penn ("The Incredible Hulk," "Watchmen").

That's 144 pages of movie madness that you won't find anywhere else. Pick up the Wizard 2007 Movie Spectacular on Dec. 6.

To order the Wizard 2007 Movie Spectacular, click here:

I like this. Clearly it's not really a sequel but it doesn't ignore the 1st film completely. Like another Hulk story similar to how James Bond and Batman films are. They're not really a seamless continuation of one story. I like this alot and this is what most of us were expecting...I think.

 

[Spade]

I'll say this as honestly yet as politely as possible: I hated The Last Stand. Penn's vision for the franchise was horrid. I then see that he's writing the script for 'The Incredible Hulk'...and plans to ignore the majority of the first film's events. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt I ask myself- "will this make the film better?" I don't see how.

Most sequels are made with the understanding that those watching it have seen the ones before. So, Penn doesn't have to make a huge reference to the first to begin with. But the reason I'm so bothered by his comments is how he makes it sound- do we really want a film that will be in continuity yet not have any of the original intent in the script? Superman Returns tried to work on a 'vague history' as well, but there's something I'll give it the one-up on: Lester and the Salkind's vision of Superman was never something I enjoyed. So I saw the change in history an improvement. I actually enjoyed Ang's Hulk. That is the contrast. I've read what the snippet said about his idea for the first, and that mood does not seem like a good start for the franchise to me. Why, then, entrust him with making a sequel to a film he only lucidly seems to have enthusiasm in? It would be as if I disliked a film and made a sequel to it that totally deviated from the original tone...sort of like what the Salkind's did.

This film has potential. I won't deny that. I think it has the potential to outdo the original in action. But my main issue is looking back at Penn's previous works and putting faith in his capacity to do much else outside of action. The first was a film that placed its basis heavily on character development. The sequel should have more action to improve upon that flaw, but should not forget the depth of the original entirely. What Penn is essentially saying is that Marvel is making a sequel to a film it was never really behind in the first place, and it's left me wondering both whether this man has the talent and whether it will truly do justice for the first.

Bleh. This is all going downhill from the getgo.

 

[Wyrminarrd]

So Banner goes from helping poor people in south america and using the Hulk to fight the armies that are preying on them to sitting around in a bar getting picked on?

I hope they try and make the movie a bit more serious then that little snipped he talked about, this isn´t a low budget TV show so the Hulk should be doing things that actually challange him.

 

[Advanced Dark]

That was the original opening of the script. Marvel liked the tone of the script so it's being re-written. He didn't say that was still in there.

 

[Wyrminarrd]

But that´s the tone, the "little man on the run getting picked on by everyone". I seriously hope they don´t go with that, Banner should be very pro active and have clear mission. If he´s just aimlessly wandering around the country trying to hide then I will be pissed off since Banner is smart enough to get out of the country!

The only way it makes sense for Banner to be in the US is:

A) He believes he´s found a way to cure himself and the things he needs are in the USA.

B) The villian (Abomination) is there and Banner believes he´s the only one who can stop him.

To have him in the US for any other reason is just plain dumb.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'll say this as honestly yet as politely as possible: I hated The Last Stand. Penn's vision for the franchise was horrid. I then see that he's writing the script for 'The Incredible Hulk'...and plans to ignore the majority of the first film's events. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt I ask myself- "will this make the film better?" I don't see how.

Most sequels are made with the understanding that those watching it have seen the ones before. So, Penn doesn't have to make a huge reference to the first to begin with. But the reason I'm so bothered by his comments is how he makes it sound- do we really want a film that will be in continuity yet not have any of the original intent in the script? Superman Returns tried to work on a 'vague history' as well, but there's something I'll give it the one-up on: Lester and the Salkind's vision of Superman was never something I enjoyed. So I saw the change in history an improvement. I actually enjoyed Ang's Hulk. That is the contrast. I've read what the snippet said about his idea for the first, and that mood does not seem like a good start for the franchise to me. Why, then, entrust him with making a sequel to a film he only lucidly seems to have enthusiasm in? It would be as if I disliked a film and made a sequel to it that totally deviated from the original tone...sort of like what the Salkind's did.

This film has potential. I won't deny that. I think it has the potential to outdo the original in action. But my main issue is looking back at Penn's previous works and putting faith in his capacity to do much else outside of action. The first was a film that placed its basis heavily on character development. The sequel should have more action to improve upon that flaw, but should not forget the depth of the original entirely. What Penn is essentially saying is that Marvel is making a sequel to a film it was never really behind in the first place, and it's left me wondering both whether this man has the talent and whether it will truly do justice for the first.

Bleh. This is all going downhill from the getgo.

I agree 100% with all of this, except i maybe hate TLS more than you! Anything Penn is involved i really dont have confidence in, and i didnt have much confidence in what Marvel was doing with this even before Penn came on board, but at least back then i had hope!

 

[HULKSTER'04]

Originally Posted by Chibikiriyama
I'll say this as honestly yet as politely as possible: I hated The Last Stand. Penn's vision for the franchise was horrid. I then see that he's writing the script for 'The Incredible Hulk'...and plans to ignore the majority of the first film's events. Now, to give him the benefit of the doubt I ask myself- "will this make the film better?" I don't see how.

Most sequels are made with the understanding that those watching it have seen the ones before. So, Penn doesn't have to make a huge reference to the first to begin with. But the reason I'm so bothered by his comments is how he makes it sound- do we really want a film that will be in continuity yet not have any of the original intent in the script? Superman Returns tried to work on a 'vague history' as well, but there's something I'll give it the one-up on: Lester and the Salkind's vision of Superman was never something I enjoyed. So I saw the change in history an improvement. I actually enjoyed Ang's Hulk. That is the contrast. I've read what the snippet said about his idea for the first, and that mood does not seem like a good start for the franchise to me. Why, then, entrust him with making a sequel to a film he only lucidly seems to have enthusiasm in? It would be as if I disliked a film and made a sequel to it that totally deviated from the original tone...sort of like what the Salkind's did.

This film has potential. I won't deny that. I think it has the potential to outdo the original in action. But my main issue is looking back at Penn's previous works and putting faith in his capacity to do much else outside of action. The first was a film that placed its basis heavily on character development. The sequel should have more action to improve upon that flaw, but should not forget the depth of the original entirely. What Penn is essentially saying is that Marvel is making a sequel to a film it was never really behind in the first place, and it's left me wondering both whether this man has the talent and whether it will truly do justice for the first.

Bleh. This is all going downhill from the getgo.

I thought it the 20th Century FOX studio's fault why X3 sucked in it's plot?
MARVEL says that they'll let Penn have all the controls this time to follow close to the comics.
I liked Ang's Hulk a lot too and yes i agree w/you that he did a lot of character developments in that film and the only way to go from there is up and amped in action which as you say will do justice to the first film.
Let's give this one a chance maybe it will go on with the getgo.

 

[Tectonic Shift]

I agree 100% with all of this, except i maybe hate TLS more than you!

Well, I might be top of the list for hatred for Kinberg/Ratner/Penn's (aka The Three Stooges) vision for TLS (I refuse to call it X3 because would require it to be on par with Bryan Singer's direction).

Anything Penn is involved i really dont have confidence in, and i didnt have much confidence in what Marvel was doing with this even before Penn came on board, but at least back then i had hope!

That was my biggest complaint when Marvel chose Penn to come on board as writer for this film. I was appalled and horrified at the same time but then I realized Marvel Studios is farily new at the Hollywood Game. They need to make an enormous amount of mistakes before they learn their lesson.

FOX already committed several atrocities with their properties (Fantastic Four, Elektra, TLS, etc..) I thought Marvel would have learned from FOX's mistakes. This doesn't seem to be the case.

Taking into consideration that the first Hulk had serious problems they should have looked into "rectifying" the problem instead of casting even more kunundrums for the production. I think Louis Leterrier could pull off a very nice action'y Punisher but I think he was also the wrong director for the Hulk. The problem lies in the fact that not only is he "green" (no pun intended) to the film game but he's employed a horrible writer to accompany him. The Hulk does require layers of emotion and while some people whine about Ang Lee's version, in the long run all Leterrier and Penn will do is make the value of Lee's Hulk increase.

The only way to make a truly good Incredible Hulk is to bring in Industrial Light & Magic with Weta to perform the Visuals, hire a well known director (Cameron comes to mind but is also very pricey), keep Eric Bana (which with the right director he'll stay), and bring in writers such as David Hayter (to bridge the last movie to this current one) & David Koepp (or Alvin Sargent) to collaborate. With this formula it would be a guaranteed success. Oh one more thing, it would be best to have this film produced through Sony Pictures who have already proven they can master bringing any comicbook character to screen with class and dignity.

 

[Advanced Dark]

X3 was the most entertaining of the three films for me and most of the general audience out there. It might be a dissapointment to the x-men geeks and fans that post daily here but they're not a very signficant portion of the box office dollars. The dVD sold well too. I enjoyed X3 and have total faith in Zak Penn. There's not studio middleman to screw this film up and Marvel knows what they want and understands the fans more than anyone. This isn't Fox or some other studio.

 

[Tectonic Shift]

X3 was the most entertaining of the three films for me and most of the general audience out there. It might be a dissapointment to the x-men geeks and fans that post daily here but they're not a very signficant portion of the box office dollars.

TLS was the least entertaining film of the three because the story doesn't connect as a stand alone. The many plots were never started or ended and were littered with plot holes. The characterizations we all loved and cared about in the first two were eliminated.

As far as the Geeks & Fans go it was also the Critics who all rallied against this film making the box office suffer. Keep in mind the film only made 235 million which should have easily been a 300million juggernaut. It also took a massive dive the week after.

TLS was an extremely frontloaded film that based it's draw on Bryan Singer's previous contribution. Most didn't even realize Brett Ratner had helmed the last film and went in thinking it was Bryan's work but quickly discovered it wasn't which is why it suffered such a massive decline in sales the weeks after.

I was also less profitable than X2.

The dVD sold well too. I enjoyed X3 and have total faith in Zak Penn. There's not studio middleman to screw this film up and Marvel knows what they want and understands the fans more than anyone. This isn't Fox or some other studio.

Mission Impossible III found a huge following on DVD. Does this make Tom Cruise a normal human being?

Depending on the studio this can be a blessing. Amy Pascal who heads up Sony Pictures is a brilliant woman who knows how to market, produce and sell her films to the public. She was able to make the unadaptable "Hellboy" into a respective film that most enjoyed, including critics.

Ghost Rider looks to be on the same track with the amazing trailers I've seen. I can't faul the studios too much but it always depends on which one you are speaking of. Marvel has zero experience in dealing with film production values. They are very naive to the whole logistics so I'm not expecting anything amazing from them for quite some time. Especially coming from a Comicbook company I'd be very skeptical of their vision which could very well be waaaaaaay over the top for mainstream public.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Again read my response.

"X3 was the most entertaining of the three films for me and most of the general audience out there. It might be a dissapointment to the x-men geeks and fans that post daily here but they're not a very signficant portion of the box office dollars."

It's all subjective and based on personal taste. The only reason X2 made more profit is because it cost less to make.

 

[Tectonic Shift]

^ Again read my response.

You must not have understood my reply or skimmed over it. I added Critics and Box office records. That itself should have explained it all.

I believe you are the minority that did indeed enjoy it. Also please bear in mind that FOX spent a bundle on the marketing campaign for this film which also taxed on more money for the film's budget. In the end this film was sourly less than X2 and perhaps even X1.

It's all subjective and based on personal taste. The only reason X2 made more profit is because it cost less to make.

You defended TLS by using numbers as an excuse. When in actuality it is even worse to use that response when comparing as to why the film was supposedly successful.

Profit-wise TLS was less successful than X1 and X2.

 

[kainedamo]

And think about this. Which do you prefer? A movie that does well, or a movie that you enjoy but didn't do very well?

Hulk may not have done very well, but it's well regarded and a quality film. X3 is lambasted by any critic with any sense. It may have done well, but it failed totally in every other respect. Characterization, story, everything.

 

[Advanced Dark]

I'm not using numbers as an excuse but more as a measuring stick of the general moviegoing audience out there. I'm talking tickets sold. Now if the movie was so horrible then the DVD probably wouldn't sell very well...but it broke records. The Hulk to me was one of Marvel's best films but to the general movie going audience out there it was not. That proves both sides of the argument that it doesnt' matter how the SHH community and die hard comic book fans feel about a particular film because it's usually not in-line with the general public. That's why studios don't make films to please just the militant SHH comic book geeks and so forth...These films cost 100 million+ to make and they're trying to extend the brand awareness beyond the boundries of Superherohype. LOL They're not making a Hulk film to appeal to 40,000 people...they need something that appeals on a global level. The Hulk while a great film to some people including me...was boring to most or they just didn't get it...and they probably never will. However films can be made that please the fans and the general public like Spiderman but alot of that has to do with character as well. I think Hulk as a character has that kind of appeal and Universal and Ang Lee took the franchise in the wrong direction if they were looking for more appeal. Lastly, just because something appeals to alot of people doesn't mean it's bad either. It's ok to like something that's popular. X3 was quite popular and no that doesn't mean it's an acceptable film to the fans but again...we're not the only people on Earth are we?

 

[Walks Unseen]

I'm not sure if Zak Penn was the right man for the job. I hope he hands in a killer script but if he dosen't then I will be pretty disapointed. Penn has to make this the best screenplay his ever written.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm not using numbers as an excuse but more as a measuring stick of the general moviegoing audience out there. I'm talking tickets sold. Now if the movie was so horrible then the DVD probably wouldn't sell very well...but it broke records. The Hulk to me was one of Marvel's best films but to the general movie going audience out there it was not. That proves both sides of the argument that it doesnt' matter how the SHH community and die hard comic book fans feel about a particular film because it's usually not in-line with the general public. That's why studios don't make films to please just the militant SHH comic book geeks and so forth...These films cost 100 million+ to make and they're trying to extend the brand awareness beyond the boundries of Superherohype. LOL They're not making a Hulk film to appeal to 40,000 people...they need something that appeals on a global level. The Hulk while a great film to some people including me...was boring to most or they just didn't get it...and they probably never will. However films can be made that please the fans and the general public like Spiderman but alot of that has to do with character as well. I think Hulk as a character has that kind of appeal and Universal and Ang Lee took the franchise in the wrong direction if they were looking for more appeal. Lastly, just because something appeals to alot of people doesn't mean it's bad either. It's ok to like something that's popular. X3 was quite popular and no that doesn't mean it's an acceptable film to the fans but again...we're not the only people on Earth are we?

Numbers dont prove anything though AD, X3 just rode the wave of success that X2 created. Do you think all of those people who went to see it on the cinema liked it? Or all the people who bought the DVD liked it? Hell i saw it on the cinema and bought the DVD but i HATE it. I'm just a completest bastard.

 

[blind_fury]

X3 was successful because people enjoyed it. If people didn't like it, it wouldve made less than the original like the sequels to Dumb and Dumber and the The Mask.

 

[kainedamo]

Didn't it make less than X2?

Anyway, people that watched the first two are gonna wanna watch the third one. I payed for a ticket, so did my friends. I know just two people that enjoyed it. So that's like... 8 people or so I know that bought tickets, only two of whom enjoyed the film.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Didn't it make less than X2?

Anyway, people that watched the first two are gonna wanna watch the third one. I payed for a ticket, so did my friends. I know just two people that enjoyed it. So that's like... 8 people or so I know that bought tickets, only two of whom enjoyed the film.

Exactly

 

[Supreme Power]

You must not have understood my reply or skimmed over it. I added Critics and Box office records. That itself should have explained it all.

I believe you are the minority that did indeed enjoy it.

And I believe you are very wrong in your opinion. Most of the people that hated it are fanboys here. DVD sales don't speak for hate to me.

 

[Supreme Power]

^ Again read my response.

"X3 was the most entertaining of the three films for me and most of the general audience out there. It might be a dissapointment to the x-men geeks and fans that post daily here but they're not a very signficant portion of the box office dollars."

It's all subjective and based on personal taste. The only reason X2 made more profit is because it cost less to make.

I agree completely.

 

[Walks Unseen]

I think that apeasing the fans of the comic book is more important than appeasing the general movie going public. Yeah I know it wont make as much money, but I would rather see a film that appeases the comic book public than seeing a film that was made for people who know diddly squat about the source material.

 

[Abaddon]

I wasn't impressed with Penn's writing in X3.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ How do you know what part of it he wrote? was he the lead writer??? I thought he and simon co-scripted it.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Didn't it make less than X2?

Anyway, people that watched the first two are gonna wanna watch the third one. I payed for a ticket, so did my friends. I know just two people that enjoyed it. So that's like... 8 people or so I know that bought tickets, only two of whom enjoyed the film.

Made more. And your poll of 8 people is probably a reasonable sample to extrapolate on a global level. LOL