For the fans of the old Bixby/Ferrigno series, though, they're going to be pissed that the Hulk isn't green. But hey, at least he's not a frakking cloud...

Still, much as I would have personally preferred that they bring Bana back, it's not like Norton is a bad choice to take over the role.

Yet, if Arad turns this in David Banner TV series with grey, then he'll really piss off fans, and I'm guessing that he'll do what Schumacker did, stop people from wanting to see fucked up movies that messes up superhero character concepts. AKA Superman Return, and fails to meet the set revenues planned.

I hope he ment storywise, as in to say, we'll actually have a story in this movie, not just Hulking outs and stupid monsters like the first Hulk movie (HulkDogs - yes they were in the comics, but was still a stupid thing to bring in; David's dad becoming the Electric Boogaloo Man (fuck Ang Lee). I hope they bring in Samson to the new movie as the "villain" (in brackets 'cause we know he's not an actual villain but is trying to stop the Hulk from mass destruction).

And the Grey Hulk was intelligent, but only in the P. David storyline, the original Gray was more of a caveman concept. I'm hoping they do this one as it should be done. The TV Series was good for tv, but not from a movie aspect. The only thing I see that could be kept here is the fact that Banner is trying to move around from town to town, but even then, that would be hard to bring in for a movie, maybe the sequel but not the new origin movie.

Norton is a great actor, and looks the part, so great choice.

Hope they do this one right.

I think Marvel is doing this because they saw how successful DC was with rebooting Batman 7 years later. I think it'll be 5 or 6 years between Hulk movies so it's not much different.

Bill Bixby gave the show some much needed humanity, and the Hulk was a melancholic and tragic figure. If a Hulk movie manages to capture some of the qualities that made that show good, then they might be on to something. Ultimately, it does not matter what color the Hulk is, just so long as it's not Kermit green.

People have to get over the idea of literal translations of comic books to the screen. It almost never works because these are two very different forms. The films can still be faithful to the books by getting the characters "right" and by honoring the humanity and ethos of the heroes, but details like skin color are unimportant. Hell, I would have loved to see a black Batman this last time out. Bale is terrific, and I think Nolan nailed it, but it would be great to see someone acknowledge that we can push the boundaries a little and no one will be harmed. And a black Batman won't have to use makeup around his eyes when he wears the mask. That one detail is annoying as hell.

"Alfred, get the Batmobile ready while I do my makeup."

Jeesh.

Answer: We don't. He'll be green.

Clearly, they're going all Bixby on this, which explains why someone of Norton's caliber is interested. That's fine, but that's not the Hulk I personally want to see on the big screen. I can't be alone on this...

Ang Lee and James Schamus tried to make an "art-house respectable" version of the Hulk FIRST; the hopes and wishes of the core fanbase and general public came a distant second. There was no fun, wish-fulfillment aspect to THE HULK at all, and THAT was its biggest mistake. I'll be the first to give them an A for effort for at least trying something different, but THE HULK 2003 gets a D for execution. The entire first film is practically INERT. All the ingredients were there for a potential classic... Lee and Schamus were the wrong cooks.

I also love Nolte, he is perfect for a comic book movie, he just should've been the Leader or Crusher Creel and not Hulk's DAD. Everything does not have to be related to everything.

Josh Lucas was fine as well, he can bring the camp, I like him as an actor, I think he did exactly what was expected of him in the movie he was a troll.

I am convinced now that Bana can do camp and chew some scenery, so he would've been fine as Banner if he had been given something external to do. Not so sure about Norton, though, he can be intense and is a fine actor.

Connolly has got to go, she is pretty but underplays everything. She seems to take herself too seriously these days. They need someone more peppy to play Betty like a Rachel McAdams, the kind of girl you would fall in love with immediately. You really don't get why Banner likes Betty except that they're both a mess, that can only take you so far in a movie where the monster has to be motivated by very pure feelings, although the scene in SF with them was sweet.

And if they do have Norton and Beil lined up now and the movie does turn out to be a big hit, I guess Kirsten Dunst's agent will be calling her up and telling her "So much for your theory about how bad it will be to recast a superhero franchise. Time to start looking for a new job, honey."

And the truth is, there's such a shining spotlight of business brilliance as well as reality acceptance to Loggia's statement that it's a shame more businesses -- most certainy Hollywood -- just doesn't live by it more often. Arguing about Ang Lee's HULK is literally the exact same thing. In fact, it just occurred to me that Tarantino's half of GRINDHOUSE, DEATH PROOF, is the updated HULK argument all over. Namely, those that liked it...those who saw it early on and are essentially akin to the "test marketers" that John Heard is rattling on about...loved the films. And that's fine. But that STILL doesn't change the fact that Loggia is right TOO. That for all the testing or all the marketing or whatever other stats you want to pull out of your ass, to paraphrase Loggia, the movies simply just didn't work with the kids.

So if you liked Ang Lee's HULK, good for you. Really. If you liked it that much, then I guess it's money that you won't miss out of your wallet. But you people who supported it have SERIOUSLY got to stop this bullshit and wafer thin argument that those of us who were disappointed or outright bored by THE HULK "obviously didn't get it." Or stop with the far more insulting accusation that "you're too dumb to appreciate REAL art", or "You're no REAL comic fans! Obviously you don't want an INTELLIGENT comic book movie!" For crying out loud, the HULK and DEATH PROOF have now become one and the same. The only way some of you can defend it is by getting up on some moral high horse and saying "Obviously I'm of a higher intellectual caliber than you, obviously I appreciate the finer things in film, so naturally you can't appreciate how great this was."

To which I say BULLSHIT. Hey, I can appreciate parts of either the HULK or DEATH PROOF. I can appreciate that both had first rate production standards and, yes, I enjoyed both when they were actually moving along. But the problem for both THE HULK and DEATH PROOF is that they DID ultimately forget "the kids" and they did turn into psycho-babble, slow as molossas self-indulgent crap. And, yes, THAT'S why they tanked at the box office. Not because people were too stupid to appreciate them, but because of the exact OPPOSITE: namely, people were TOO SMART to fall for such crap, and as a result they simply chose to spend their hard earned money and their night off from work at a GOOD movie instead.

But as I said, hey, if you liked it, good for you. Just quit trying to rationalize "why" the rest of us aren't getting Ang Lee's HULK. Hell, if we're going to go down that road, we might as well turn all-out geek and go all the way back to THE PHANTOM MENACE and reopen the Prequels debate and "why" those who don't like them likewise "aren't getting it." For crying out loud, we could play this game all day. As Loggia said, "Move on!"

TriumphPoops: Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for bringing up the "kids card." As much as I could appreciate what Ang Lee and company were at least TRYING to do, the simple sad fact is that they completely disregarded the child/pre-teen audience of THE HULK, much like Burton did with BATMAN RETURNS. I didn't have any kids at the time (I have two daughters now), but if I'd had a 5-10 year old son back in '03, there's no way I would have taken him to see a "comic-book movie" where the father kills Bruce Banner's mother with a knife and then physically and mentally abuses the son. Having Bambi's mother get shot off-camera is one thing... THIS was completely different and just left a sour taste in my mouth. Whether or not it was handled well is moot: It was just SO unnecessary and I'm positive that THAT was the number one point brought up by parents to other parents which caused the overriding bad word-of-mouth and the infamous -70% second weekend drop-off. Sure, lots of single people probably weren't wild about the film, but I'm sure it's the parents that kept their kids home from that one. And that's what I mean by keeping it fun. There was NO NEED to make this Hulk so disturbing, unsettling, bleak and morose. Some people like that sort of thing... I've moved past that and it's NOT what I wanted from my first HULK movie. I personally was looking for some sort of perfect synthesis of the Bill Mantlo/Sal Buscema comics and the Bixby/Ferrigno TV show and not some post-Frank Miller/Alan Moore existential b.s. repression-fest from Ang Lee (who I DO admire, by the way--just not as the director of THE HULK).

Here's hoping THE INCREDIBLE HULK is, indeed, a LIGHTER film; that doesn't mean silly jokes... just not a movie that makes you want to slit your wrists at the end. What's so wrong about that?