Building A Better Reboot: Five Films That Taught Us How It’s Done

The Incredible Hulk

Lesson: Improve. Fix what went wrong the first time around.

Most reboots are created because something went wrong the first time around, whether it be an old franchise running out of steam or a new property that arrived on creative life-support. This is the story of Louis Leterrier’s The Incredible Hulk, an attempt to successfully re-launch the Hulk franchise after Ang Lee’s critically and commercially disastrous 2003 film.

Lee’s Hulk was a disappointment on all fronts. I greatly respect the film’s dramatic ambition, and do not bemoan Lee for trying to explore the psychology of the character, but nearly every tonal and narrative choice felt like a major miscalculation. The film is oppressively dark, bleak and brutal and anguished without a hint of enjoyment, basing its story around topics of domestic abuse, repression, and mental illness. The pacing is languid, waiting a full hour to actually arrive at the Hulk’s origin, and somehow only slowing down and becoming even drearier from there. It is a tough film to sit through, one that fails to function as entertainment, drama, or an effective combination of the two.

Leterrier’s Incredible Hulk is not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a good one, and what impresses me most about it is the practically systematic way Leterrier goes about improving upon every misstep of the original. Bruce Banner’s tragic origin is related visually through the opening credits; he has a Hulk transformation in one of the very first scenes; there is a steady flow of impressive action sequences throughout the film without sacrificing character development; psychology is still a part of the film, but Bruce’s trauma no longer overwhelms things; and most importantly, the tone and pace consistently feel in line with how the Hulk should best be depicted.

The Incredible Hulk is not a major dramatic triumph – Leterrier’s vision for the character is not nearly as insightful as Nolan’s was for Batman, for instance – but it is at least confident and consistent in its understanding of the Hulk, a sharp contrast to Lee’s muddled philosophy in the first feature. There are no major issues Leterrier does not address in his reboot, taking every criticism leveled at Lee’s film to heart when crafting the new film. He even redesigns the CGI Hulk from the ground up, making him look much more menacing and convincing.

The result is a satisfying and fulfilling film, especially to fans of the character. The Incredible Hulk has grown a bit of an adverse reputation in the years since its release, after Norton was recast for Avengers and it became clear the Hulk was not a standalone priority for Marvel, but that does not change the fact that this is a good and solid foundation for the character. It delivers on the same fronts all the Marvel Studios films do, offering excellent action, thoughtful character work, and strong performances from an expertly assembled cast.

The film’s greatest contribution in the evolution of the reboot, meanwhile, is its ability to assess the failings of its predecessor and strike out in new and improved directions. Whether or not one loves the finished product, it is clear Leterrier took what fans and critics had to say about Lee’s film to heart, a lesson all attempting to reboot a stagnant property should learn from.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

http://www.gamingblend.com/ William Usher

Call me crazy but I actually enjoyed Ang Lee’s Hulk as time goes on. It seems to hold its own as it ages. I also liked that Lee’s vision of the Hulk gave him much more of a heroic undertaking and a rise to heroism as opposed to the more sloppy but action-packed reboot.

The science in Lee’s Hulk also gave the movie a bit more grounding and something for viewers to hold on to in relating to the character as opposed to simply rooting for the Hulk simply because he was the Hulk.
- Applerod
  
  I agree and really don’t think Ang Lee’s version was the huge embarrassing disastrous failure that everyone else apparently does. I guess the “problem” is that it didn’t give the audience “Hulk SMASH!!” in the first 10 minutes, instead substituting more of a meditative, artful approach to the character. I quite enjoyed the film — particularly the editing style. It had its shortcomings (sap; Nick Nolte clearly on blow; etc..), but the so-called “reboot” needs a reboot because quality-wise I consider it marginally inferior to its predecessor.
- Joeleo
  
  I did like some aspects of the first Hulk movie, it had some good effects and I will give Lee credit for trying to give it a comic book feel with the split panels and whatnot, but I thought the casting was abysmal. In other movies I like Nolte, Bana (was great in Star Trek for example) and Connelly but thought they all failed in this movie. And I think Lee was probably never a comic book fan, and it showed. I do have the dvd and watch it occasionally but The Incredible Hulk got closer to the source material and did things right
  - http://www.gamingblend.com/ William Usher
    
    Well, getting close to source material doesn’t always equate to a better movie, maybe for fanboys (not meant in a derogatory way) but for average movie goers a more accessible film is usually a better film and Ang Lee’s Hulk was more accessible from a story and character development standpoint.
    
    Let’s take Punisher: Warzone for example, that was closer to the source material but man was that a horrible, horrible movie. The plot was silly, the characterization was awful, the action was goofy (swinging upside down on the chandelier? Really?) and the gore was over-excessive in a campy, B-movie way. While Thomas Jane’s Punisher wasn’t as close to the source material it was a better overall movie in terms of story, character development and continuity, which is why it ages better than Punisher: Warzone.
    
    I do agree about the casting for Ang Lee’s Hulk and that they could have done a better job (except for Connelly, but I’d pretty much watch anything she’s in).
jsmith0552

I agree with every film on in this article with the exception of the Abram’s Star Trek film. That film looked for all the world like a person who was given a character sheet and then pasted them onto a generic Hollywood action Sci-Fi film. I expect a little more from Star Trek than a summer pop corn action flick. People still reference Wrath of Khan because it was well written and multi-layered while Abram’s Star Trek is pretty much forgotten after four years.
http://twitter.com/MinimeJer05 Jeremy Lebens

Fantastic write up. I especially enjoyed the Stark Trek and Apes pages, because those were the most surprising or ones that I thought for sure were going to suck or be lesser than previously established properties.
james

“Abrams captured much of what makes Star Trek special – the optimistic vision of the future, mankind’s symbiotic relationship with technology, strategy-based warfare, etc.”

I’m sorry, but what Trek did you watch? There was nothing optimistic about it, no sense of exploration into the unknown, it was a Star Wars movie coated with Trek characters. The only thing it had in respect to the original was the cheesy mainstream lines that non-trek fans merely assumed was in it.
- http://www.facebook.com/angie.barrows.5 Angie Barrows
  
  I agree.
  
  “… the Star Trek universe we know and love changed into something
  fresh, original, and utterly unpredictable. … it felt profoundly disorientating to see recognizable versions of Kirk, Scott, McCoy, and the other classic characters thrust into a situation where we could not be sure, even for a second, of their fate. With continuity swept away in a massive black hole, these characters were dynamic again, their story relevant and engrossing once more.”
  
  How is it the Trek universe with the characters we know and love if everything is changed or original and you don’t know what to expect because everyone and everything is “utterly unpredictable?” Keeping a few recognizable elements but changing all of the rest isn’t enough familiarity for me to call it the Star Trek I know and love.
  
  “They chose to … blow the whole damn thing up.”
  
  Exactly.
  - http://www.facebook.com/npu3pagg Aleksey Highlander
    
    i hate original Star track so freaking much.. the uniforms are so gay, most of the stories are so boring and to finish it of acting is poor ass.. Babylon 5 thats the classic sci-phy! no cheesy shit in it! but hte new movie of star track wasn’t bad at alll !!! fresh, new. something different. some proper action. no gay interactions and gay uniforms!
Zachariah Dearing

Why isn’t Amazing Spiderman on the list?
- …..
  
  Because it was an unnecesary movie, that doesnt have any reason to exist.. other than Sony keeping the rigths, and the casting is off, all the things it did rigth were done better by the Original Spiderman
lunasgathering

I agree with the comment that motion capture should be counted as ‘real’ acting. Andy Serkis should easily have an Oscar for some of the amazing performances he’s turned in through motion capture. Gollum and the Ape are proof enough of that.
ace13

Casino Royale was Boring.