Talk:The Incredible Hulk (film)/Archive 3

Today's edit

Here is the rationale behind my deletion of one paragraph. First, no sequel has been announced, so the subhead has to be, at most, "Potential sequel." The first graf references, with quotes from direct-witness parties, why the 2008 film did certain things with an eye toward a potential sequel. That's concrete, factual information that explains why certain things in the existing movie are the way they are.

The second graf is referenced, but that's not the same as relevant. Every filmmaker, studio, distributor, star, etc., has hopes and dreams and plans and wishes for the future. That's interesting and relevant in a magazine feature or a newspaper article, but it's not encyclopedic — it's newsy. What they want to happen in the future falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL. It also serves to try and create buzz in the fan community for a sequel — and Wikipedia is not their marketing tool. Nor is it a fan site that prints every tidbit about what the filmmakers want, or what they may do if they can. We're not on a deadline, so why not wait until something concrete happens or is announced? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The original section (which you reverted) contained REFERENCED (verifiable) content relating the potential sequel and The Avengers film. If you're going to revert all of this, at least still include the verifiable references. It's pointless having a smaller section without them.--Snowman Guy (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not let's do this compromise: Add the references to the "External links" section, which per Wikipedia is for "for further reading" citations. That way, the references are there for those want to read about these future possibilities, but they're not in the hard-core-factual mainspace of the article itself. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. But at least at the sentence of Norton signing on to reprise the role in the 'Potential sequel' section.--Snowman Guy (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. My apology for missing that point. I saw "Nelson signed on", and thought "Norton signed on," duh. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Think it's important to discuss how Leterrier left the final shot ambigious though. Also, putting "Potential" in the title is redundant because if the sequel were in production, it'd have its own article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree about Leterrier, disagree about removing "Potential," but if other editors don't object to just "Sequels," then neither will I. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional review (New York Times)

FYI

• A. O. Scott (2006-06-13). "Caution: Contents Turn Angry When Shaken". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 2008-06-14.

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Need a heading name

I have an idea to weave the casting section into the production section, and create a section dedicated to Norton's involvement from casting to writing to editing. I was thinking to call it "Writing", as editing is the second chance you get to write a film. Then I thought "Norton's involvement", although the section would discuss Penn's work on the film. Thoughts? Alientraveller (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It's tough to shift the content around, I can see. What about going against the norm with run-of-the-mill subsection headings and use chronological markers similar to "Norton's involvement" instead? Perhaps first see Production as one big section and separate different tones? For example, "Effects" could be re-titled "Re-designing the Hulk", and other possible headings could be like that. Just an outside-of-the-box thought. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to go against the norm by including editing in release. Afterall, test screenings led to the re-editing of the opening, which I'll implement soon, and the arguement over it contributed to some bad press over the film. Alientraveller (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Geographic point

After leaving Rio, and before arriving in the USA, Banner spends some time in a Spanish-speaking country. Where was this--Peru? Mexico? (I couldn't hear that line during the movie.) Gracias! --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.166.156 (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Voices

According to the ending credits,Lou Ferrigno did indeed supply the voice for the Hulk,as he did for the UPN Cartoon series. Sochwa (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Death of The Abomination

Are we sure The Abomination dies? It's left pretty open I feel, unless there's something I'm missing. Seegoon (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he died at all, he was still moving after hulk let go of the chains. ThuranX (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can clearly see, in every shot, that the Blonsky character is still breathing, even as Hulk kicks him towards the General. Onikas (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Since then it's been edited in a neutral manner. It seems likely that Abomination didn't die, but it's not fact either way. Now it's written that Hulk releases his grip and Abomination falls to the ground... as to whether he died or not, people can interpret it how they want. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In the movie book The Incredible Hulk, it says that the Abomination does not die, but is given over to Tony Stark and contained by him. ForteKane (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sterns head

It pulsated for a second and then went back to normal. Mutated infers that it's permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.148.8 (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

he was turning into the leader i did not see it turn back69.220.1.137 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his head did NOT return to its original size and shape; but to say he was turning into the leader is beyond the schope of what was shown. (As a fan I fully agree it was, but we can't assume facts not in evidence. when the Norton Cut is released, we'll be able to add much more.)ThuranX (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Concur with ThuranX here and below. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Abomination name

Why is Blonsky listed as Abomination in the article, when Zack Penn stated that he would not be called Abomination in the film?-Snowman Guy (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is seeing heavy traffic, and because the character is acknowledged to BE the Abomination, but not referred to as such in the context of the story. In other words, the real world side, the production team referred to the character and the CGI construct as the Abomination, but in the story, no one said 'look out, it's The Abomination'. As such, there are points where it should say 'abomination', like the production details, and places it should say 'Blonsky', like the plot. ThuranX (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"no one said 'look out, it's The Abomination'" - no, but Sterns clearly says "The result could be an Abomination" - so that's pretty clearly a reference to the character being called Abomination in the film --82.6.90.185 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a nod to the fans, just like the line in Iron Man that Stane and Stark are both Iron Mongers. It is not, however, the NAME given to the monster that hulk fights. So it stays out. ThuranX (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say the same thing with the Hulk seeing, if I can remember correctly the Co-eds said that the Green Sasquatch(the first alias given in the news paper) stated that it looked like "a" Hulk. But then thats how super hero movies go when the hero/villain get their names like Iron Man, Spider Man, Doc and etc. seeing that they almost never give them selfs a name but the media does. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In the film. others referred to the altered Banner as a or the Hulk. That did not occur in any form for Blonsky. ThuranX (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX is correct. We went through this ad infinitum with the third X-Men movie, and a little bit with the Iron Man movie. In each case, consensus is that we go by the official, published, contractual credits. Anything else is us putting our own interpretation of how we as fans think it should be. As much as we may want to, we can't do that. Blonsky is referred to offhandedly as "an abomination" — lowercase — and not the Abomination. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar consensus is being reached (we hope) at the Abomination's page. ThuranX (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On "Incredible Hulk" action figure packaging relating to the movie, the charchter is called "Abomination". This lends some credence to the pro-Abomination argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk • contribs) 14:20, July 30, 2008

No it doesn't. How a toy company markets its' products has no bearing on the facts of the film. ThuranX (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I concur with ThuranX. We're using a descriptive claim of the primary source, in this case, the film. The villain is not explicitly named Abomination within the context of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. if Hasbro (or whomever) wanted to package a Darth Vader actiona figure as "Darth Steven Segal", do you think for one moment that the movie producers, distributing company, etc, would allow not. Of course not. These toy lines are tied VERY CLOSELY to the movie productions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.155.55 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the poor example, nobody is saying that he isn't being named "Abomination" outside the film. When the film itself is described, there is no explicit naming. We don't just force the in-universe information and out-of-universe information to match up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the DVD special features is called "Becoming The Abomination", and is about Tim Roth's character in the film. I think it's pretty safe to say that Tim Roth's character is therefore called "The Abomination"--82.6.90.185 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly it is "the Abomination". We all know this. But inside the film, he isn't called that. And the character names have to reflect who the characters are inside the film. Planewalker Dave (talk) 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I can't believe this is coming up again. A judgment based on a DVD features list? Wait till the DVD comes out, at least. I wouldn't be surprised to see that 'not naming him that' quote or similar info used in that segment. Wait till then, at least. sheeesh. ThuranX (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Global distributor

The infobox states that Paramount is the global distributor but is that accurate? I don't recall seeing anything in the credits (yeah, I waited for a post-credit scene and got that bored in the process...) and the opening credit-scene showed just Universal (with Marvel Studios of course). Did I miss something by chance? -- Harish (Talk) - 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was incorrect. Alientraveller (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, bro. -- Harish (Talk) - 17:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Stearns' College

The article states that they meet Stearns at Empire State University and provides an accompanying link. However, in the film, I don't recall it ever being referred to as such. AND, Stearns email is tracked to Grayburn University. It seems much more likely that his labs would be at the university connected to his email, and thus I've changed that in the article. Feel free to revert if I missed something.--Anonymous

YOu're correct. The director wanted it to be the fictional Empire State, but the rights to that name were part of Sony's Spider-Man package, as that is also the college Peter Parker went to in the comics. A similar situation happened with the DAREDEVIL pic who had to create a new fictional newspaper instead of using the Daily Bugle as reporter Ben Urich's employer. Swingkid570 (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Requel?

I noticed a new Ref. was added to the article, in which producer Hurd said the fans have called it a Requel (Sequel and Reboot) but I don't understand this. Ed Norton and the director have said it's a total reboot, with new ties to Hulk. Can someone please explain this to me?--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Read the articles. No one says all the people involved have to discuss it the same way. I believe she was referring to the 'ends/starts in South America' plotlines, among other things. ThuranX (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the whold development section, as well as the reference. But now that I think of it, She wasen't really the one who came up with 'Requel'. She said they weren't sure what to call it, so fans were asked and it was named 'Requel' by them.

And then Leterrier the director, said the only two similarities between the two films, Is Banner hiding out in South America at (at the end of Hulk and the first part of IH).

And yes, It would seem others involved are discussing it NOT the same way. Only reason I asked this here is because if cast/crew members involved on the film discuss it different ways, then what is the film meant to be? After I viewed the film myself yesterday, I thought it was a REquel also. I was just confused with the whole thing, Is all.--Snowman Guy (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But, remember, "Requel" is just a made up, silly term. Anyone can call the movie whatever they want. With respect to the production, the article defaults to how the producers/cast identify the movie. In reception, its reported how the outside have identified it. We are just reporting such views here, not claiming anything as fact. All the terminology has been funny from the beginning... if Banner was played by Bana again, it would be a quite uncontroversial, regular sequel, basically picking up where the other movie left off. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Aikido or Jujitsu

Although Rickson Gracie is a known Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practicioner, his character is credited as Aikido instructor, and the techniques his character is shown teaching Banner are very remiscent of Aikido hip-throwhing techniques (by the way, I'm not, in any way, saying that these techniques are EXCLUSIVE of Aikido). Onikas (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Vs. Abomination

Could we put more information on the final battle between the Hulk and The Abomination? The K.O. King (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No: the whole paragraph on Blonsky's final mutation is already rather big. Alientraveller (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Alientraveller. That would literally be the kind of "blow by blow" synopsis we avoid!  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go further, and suggest that once the furor dies down ,the entire plot get a reduction. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. The K.O. King (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't we atleast add in the fact that it wasn't the choke hold that did him in, but Hulk stomping and breaking his ribs? Pvegeta (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't break his ribs. Alientraveller (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Abomination or Blonsky

Should we call Blonsky The Abomination at the end of this page instead of Blonsky? The K.O. King (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

#Abomination name Alientraveller (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

GA-Class

How can we improve this article to make it GA quality? Iron Man (film) was GA within two weeks I think? Something like that I think. We should get moving on this article. Thoughts? -- Harish (Talk) - 09:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

VFXWorld

• The Incredible Hulk: Back to Basics
• Michael Holzl Tackles The Incredible Hulk

Headlines about visual effects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Plot synopsis edits

Although I know that an article like this is going to experience a frequent number of tweaks here and there, including to the Plot Synopsis, many of which seem good, I noticed a number of edits that I don't think improve it. Among them:

• The opening passage that mentions the backstory "and further exposition". That exposition serves this purpose is a given in all fiction, and in light of the mention of the flashbacks, it's redundant.
• The revelation that Banner's experiment involved super soldiers, which in the film, is given by Ross to Blonsky after Blonsky's first encounter with the Hulk, was moved up to this same aforementioned passage. I see no reason for this, since, as part of the Plot synopsis, it properly belongs where it occurred in the film, especially since it precipitates Blonsky's demand that he be given the S.S. treatment for his rematch with Hulk.
• This may be somewhat technical and picayune, but the beverage bottled at the factory was certainly a "soft drink", but it was not mentioned explicitly, AFAIK, to be a "soda", so I modified it accordingly.
• "This accident points Ross to Banner's location, and he sends a team to capture him. Banner escapes Ross by transforming into the Hulk and battling his team in the factory. Ross' field leader, the Russian-born British special operations expert Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth)," It makes no sense to mention Blonsky where it does. It should mention that he's the team leader up front, as it did when I first wrote this section, and not after Hulk's escape is mentioned, since it is from Blonsky that Hulk escapes and not from "Ross", except in a distant, indirect way, since Ross isn't even present during that mission. I reverted the passage accordingly.
• I don't think mentioning exact tactics used in the fight scenes, like the use of sonic cannons, is necessary, especially given the need to keep the Plot short and to the point.

If anyone disagrees with this, I suggest we discuss it here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM says you don't have to explain the back-story like the film does. See Transformers as an example. It's also recommended to make the section as stand-alone as possible, and it is important to note exposition is the only time we get real insight into what Ross and Banner were working on. Alientraveller (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way does my edit make it less standalone than with the other version? Nightscream (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't leave it to the lead to mention how the back-story is exposited (is that a word, lol). As it's a reboot, the reader expects the film to be an origin story but the section informs them the film is like a sequel to an unmade film. Alientraveller (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. I don't see how this pertains to my edits, since you left the mention about the flashbacks alone. I thought it was my position that we shouldn't leave it to the lead, but instead mention it where Ross mentions it to Blonsky in the film, and you responded that we don't have to explain it using the chronological scene placement of the movie. Now you're saying we shouldn't put it in the lead. I apologize if I'm having trouble understanding this; can you clarify? Nowhere in my edit does it indicate or imply that it's a sequel to anything.

Also, a couple of things I forgot to include in my last post, but which I didn't get a chance to edit in there before you responded:

1. Which scenes "imply" that Banner was kept out of the dark of the experiments' intended applications, esp. given that it was a military project?
2. In what way does reverting the section so that Blonsky is only mentioned for the first time when Banner is escaping him make sense? Shouldn't he be mentioned up front? When the passage mentions that Ross sends "a team", wouldn't that make sense as the place to mention that Blonsky is that team's leader? And by not mentioning that Ross explains to Blonsky who the Hulk was, don't you think it makes the statement about Blonsky's declaration that he wants Banner's power seem a bit uncontextualized?

I left the opening passage alone, but I reverted the explanation of Blonsky and his learning of the Hulk origin, because I think it reads a lot more clearly that way. Let me know what you think. Nightscream (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for fully reverting it, because your introduction was Blonsky was superior to mine. As for your first query, no, I didn't write that, but Ross told Blonsky in their first discussion about the supersoldier project he didn't tell Banner the full extent of what they were doing. Banner later said when Betty was hospitalized, Ross revealed to him what he intended to do. Your call. Alientraveller (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it mostly looks good, but I think the "other exposition" mention should be removed from the opening passage for the aforementioned reasons; it goes without saying that info is given in exposition, and I think the most logical place to mention Ross' explanation of the experiment is in the passage following Blonsky's first encounter with the Hulk. That's just me. What does everyone else here think? Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing Scene

How come the one-on-one scene between Banner and Samson wasn't in the movie? Is there a source providing a reason for that? Or did I just miss it? Rau's Speak Page 07:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted. If you mean if the article should explain why it was deleted, the reader can make up their own mind by learning Marvel wanted the film to be twenty minutes shorter than the director and Norton did. Alientraveller (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ohh.... $#@%ing Marvel. Rau's Speak Page 08:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Incredible Hulk (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Development section, it would be best to link "Avi Arad" once, per here. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.

   Half-check. Tell me, do the red links in the article link to anything? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   Unlinked Morningside Park in Filming. While my philosophy is to let red links lie around to give someone else to prompt them to create an article, I don't think that park will ever deserve one. Alientraveller (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   That's very true, but I'm just going with the MoS. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Reference 58 is missing publishing info. Does Reference 41 cover all this ---> "Producer Gale Anne Hurd acknowledged the Hulk, being green, was a popular environmental analogy, and Norton himself was an environmentalist. Hybrid and fuel efficient vehicles were used, with low sulfur diesel as their energy source. The construction department used a sustainably harvested, locally sourced yellow pine instead of lauan for the sets, and also used zero-or low-VOC paint. The wood was generally recycled or given to environmental organizations, and paint cans were handed to waste management. In addition, they used; cloth bags; biodegradable food containers; china and silverware food utensils; a stainless steel mug for each production crew member; a contractor who removed bins; recycled paper; biodegradable soap and cleaners in the trailers and production offices; and the sound department used rechargeable batteries"? In the Marketing section, does Reference 55 cover this ---> "Universal and its promotional partners have tried to position The Incredible Hulk as a franchise reboot similar to Batman Begins"? If not, a source is needed for that statement.

   'Nother half-check. Is there a source available for the last sentence in the Box office section? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

   All the article needs, a source for the this ---> "As of June 26, 2008, The Incredible Hulk has grossed $115,037,960 in the United States and Canada, as well as $201,124,524 worldwide". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

   Done. Alientraveller (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference 58's information wasn't worth of inclusion: glowing action figures, we're not a depository. And yes, References 41 and 55 do cover all that. I also didn't realise Arad had been overlinked in Development, I fixed that. Alientraveller (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank Alientraveller for being patient in this review, but it needs to be clear that I was just doing my job of making sure that the article met GA standards. With that being said, congratulations, you know have a GA in your midst. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 11:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I didn't think it took too long, like you said, you helped me improve the article further. Alientraveller (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite welcome in that. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 11:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Section titles (revew, reception, etc)

Just hoping to start a conversation to find some sort of consensus. Hopefully someone from the film project will be willing to help as well. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You asked if the films project has a preferred name for that section. I don't know, but WP:MOSFILM calls the section about critical reception, well, critical reception. At any rate, "use one word, not two" ranks among the more ludicrous reasonings I've recently come across and "Reviews" is definitely unacceptable POV. user:Everyme 08:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the edit summary wasn't worded well (I didn't write it though). I don't see how reviews is POV as it seems a pretty neutral word but, it wasn't that edit you reverted it was the edit I made you reverted and claimed it to be POV. Believe me when I say that my edit was what I said it was in the edit summary an attempt to find neutral ground between yourself and the other editor. He gets his "one word" (which conforms formatticly (not a real word I know but) with the other section headings and you got the word "Review" removed. All I'm asking is that you don't accuse me of having a POV on the matter when I quite clearly stated I was trying to help the two of you find some neutral ground. I'm asking that you also leave the content as I placed it for now. So that we can get the opinion of the people that work on these sorts of articles the most. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So can anyone clear up why they consider "Reviews" to be POV? Steve ^{T • C} 09:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the section title certainly isn't set in stone by WP:MOSFILM; the title used there is just one for the section of the guideline, not a direction to use that wording. Generally, it's left up to individual editors, and it also depends upon how the article is structured (for example, including box office details and reviews as subsections of the same section might mean a greater degree of disambiguation is required than simply "Reception"). I know that some editors don't like to use the word "Critical", as it suggests, well, criticism. But what's the particular objection to "Reception" or "Reviews" in this case? Steve ^{T • C} 09:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reception is fine, but Critical reception is the more accurate term, that's why they use it in MOSFILM. "Review" implies journalistic coverage only, which is clearly wrong. Furthermore, I personally have the impression that "Review" sounds overly favourable, or implies favourable critical reception, but that may be just my own impression and the other reason I gave is more than sufficient: the section is not simply about journalistic reviews, it's about the general critical reception. Can we now change it to the accurate term? Oh, and people who think that the word "critical" in Critical reception implies unfavourable reviews and remove it for that reason shouldn't edit Wikipedia at all. Just saying. user:Everyme 09:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. Though the use of it in WP:MOSFILM is just an accident really; I think until a few days ago it did simply read "Reception". Anyway, I really don't care one way or the other, but in the interests of not having an argument over one word, are both parties here willing to take that middle route (i.e. "Reception")? Steve ^{T • C} 10:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. user:Everyme 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me as well (like I said above I was trying to find something neutral between the other two users). Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD/VCD/Blue Ray?

does anyone knows when it'll be released in those platforms? 202.138.168.72 (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Box Office Performance

The article cites boxofficemojo.com with a reference date of 8-4-08 for the movie grossing a total of $244 million dollars (combined domestic and international receipts.) I've just checked boxofficemojo.com and the tally there is only $228 million combined.

Also, The article uses the adjective "wide margin" in comparing the previous film performance against the current movie. Since The Incredible Hulk is now only 7% behind the original box office of The Hulk, is this phrase still appropriate? That phrase appears a little biased to indicate a negative opinion of the current film. Simply stating that The Incredible Hulk is unlikely to match the previous film's receipts seems like better language. 128.119.214.155 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Positive" reviews?

Sort of a nitpick, but I fail to see how this film can be considered to have "mostly positive" reviews with 68%. I edited it, but I'm perfectly open if someone wants to justify otherwise. 140.129.62.51 (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Didn't we already go through this, like twice? ThuranX (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with a meta quote, as I'd rather the websites (RT and MC) spoke for themselves. Alientraveller (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. ThuranX (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Hulk film after Hulk (2003)?

It says in the beginning of the article that this is ".The second Hulk film after Hulk (2003)". If it is, wouldn't a mention of the film in between Hulk (2003) and The Incredible Hulk (2008) be in order? So people like me can learn about it and perhaps watch that one too (since I at the moment have NO CLUE what film this is that appears between the 2003 and the 2008 ones)83.249.226.186 (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless it was an animated, direct-to-DVD Hulk film that was released between the two live-action films, I am definitely sure there were no other movies between the two.--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just a really clumsily written sentence - it't trying to say that after Hulk (2003), it is the second film to feature the Hulk in the lead role.Mmm commentaries (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP knows, he's just using ridiculous amounts of sarcasm instead of actually fixing the problem. ThuranX (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

would be much closer to the comics and the television series

This statement seems self-contradictory, since the comics were not terribly close to the television series. One can see the television series influence in the posters alone.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The film is inspired by both though, and Bruce Jones' comic book run was heavily influenced by the show and was an inspiration for this film (especially the Mr. Green/Mr. Blue aliases). Alientraveller (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Replacing an image?

I was wondering if it was possible to replace Image:Hulk screenshot from the trailer.jpg with a screenshot that shows both the Hulk and Abomination. The "Effects" section discusses both characters and their designs, so it seems worth capturing both of them in action, since both of them have their own shots on the fictional character articles. Maybe something like this would do? Or another screenshot? I'd take a look at the film to see what screenshots could be pulled off, but I already sent the DVD back to Netflix after watching it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Both current effects images are far too old, and I'd love for a screenshot showing the completed effects shots. When you say a shot of them together, I immediately thought about them struggling against the wall because the look on their faces exemplifies the motion capture work and the realistic lighting (neither of them look fully green). However, there is an image I think would be quite interesting, in this video from 2:45 to 2:53. I could easily print screen that. Alientraveller (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember the shot you mean from the film. The scifi.com image also could work, but it has an "incomplete" look. I don't know if it would be misleading or not. Do you have the DVD for the wall-struggle shot? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the Blu-ray, which opens a whole can of worms, and even then my computer cannot play film DVDs. Alientraveller (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the image that you want? Do you have an exact time spot, or just any image in that range above?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It needs to have both of them in it, so it could either be just before Abomination tells the Hulk he doesn't deserve his power and stabs him, or when the camera goes below them as the Hulk begins to push him away. The problem is that both characters are always opposing one another, unless you want to show the Abomination getting strangled. If you see a much better shot than the strangling, choose it. Alientraveller (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you just want the most clear image possible? I won't be able to see if I can capture a shot until 9pm tonight. I'm going to work right now, and then I have a class immediately after (Smallville at 8pm). But, I should be able to see if I can capture something before the nights out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is the best I could do for that final fight between Abomination and Hulk. They aren't great images because their night images, with a fight scene that generally happens rather quickly (i.e. blurred images on the screen). See if you like any. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

these images are good because their are newGordenie (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

DVD Sales

I think that if someone can find some accurate news on DVD sales, that it should be added into the article. Son of Kong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Son of Kong (talk • contribs)

While I appreciate JAROSHULK28 (talk · contribs) for updating box office and sales numbers, I can't help but wonder if combined grosses are trivial for the lead. I've been trying to help out, advise, c/e, but Jaros is rather silent. Alientraveller (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

They should not be combined with the box office gross, because they are not equivalent figures. It isn't like combining the North American take with the UK take. Plus, those DVD figures are only for the US.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) on his DVD-related edit just now. Whether a major holiday release was #1 in DVD sales the week it came out seems of little encyclopedic significance. It comes across as hype, whereas the raw number of units shipped (properly cited) is useful quantitative data. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sequel note in lead

At this stage, no studio or distributor has committed to a Hulk sequel. It's something Marvel wants to do, but which may not happen. The film's own director believes it will not, according to cited sources within this very article. The line in the lead about Marvel deciding to do a sequel after The Avengers is misleading at best — anyone can decide any blue-sky thing they want, but that doesn't mean it will happen ... particularly given the vagaries of Hollywood film production, the economic downturn, etc.

The Sequel section establishes the cast and crew's contractual obligations should it happens, and discusses the Hulk's appearance in The Avengers, but there is nothing definite about a Hulk sequel, and talking about it in the lead is premature and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We can word it to treat it as a plan, but WP:CRYSTAL does not at all apply here. It says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." This clearly permits coverage as we have it in the "Sequels" section, so why is it inappropriate to include a brief mention of this section's content? Wikipedia and its articles are dynamic. If it does not work out, we can easily update it to say that plans changed. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing the sequel possibilities in the Sequel section, with appropriate context and qualifiers. But no concrete plans exist, and when even the director is saying it may not happen, the possibility of a sequel is so vague and iffy that it cannot be justified in something so important as the lead. Yes, the lead summarizes the article — but there are whole sections in the article not touched on in the lead, so the fact of a Sequels section does not de facto justify a mention in the lead. Is the lead critically hurt by it not saying, "There's vague talk about a sequel, but it's just talk at this point and nobody knows anything concrete." -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is relevant to state what kind of future has been discussed following this film's release. I understand your concern about this not being a guarantee, but is there no kind of wording that would reflect that this is by no means a certainty? There are a lot of different projects going on with Marvel Studios, and I think it is evident to see that they are trying to line them up, whether they work out or not. Considering how they did not follow Hulk so cleanly, it seems like this detail could be mentioned here, that there won't be a fast-tracked sequel to The Incredible Hulk by summer 2010, but instead a attempt to draw the projects together. I think that saying "It's just talk" is too light. It's the kind of talk that's part of a larger agenda, not a completely wishy-washy statement. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's part of larger marketing agenda. In reality, there are no plans at present for a Hulk sequel — just a desire, understandable enough, on the part of the character's corporate owner. I'm not sure we need to be helping promote their marketing agenda by giving it undue significance by placing it in the lead. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Alientraveller has done much, well, incredible work on this article. I've left a neutrally worded request on his talk page, here, to get another, knowledgeable voice weighing in. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. The reason I put it there, regardless of whether Marvel's grand plan of Avengers movies falls apart, is that even though this film trumped (low) expectations the studio were happy to let Hulk reappear as a supporting character in another film. It's certainly no Iron Man, who is the only Avengers character will get two movies before the event film. In contrast, after Ang Lee's film they were trying their best to resuscitate the character (remember, another writer was working on this project before Leterrier, Penn or Norton). It's just to tell readers despite the film being more popular than its predecessor, we may not learn what happened to Samuel Sterns until 2012. Alientraveller (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I might disagree, I can certainly respect the consensus of two knowledgeable editors.

In that case, I think it'd be more accurate to say "possible sequel," since there are no concrete plans, just a desire. The Avengers movie could flop, the economic downturn could cancel production ... anything can happen between now and 2012. It's only a possibility, and we can't state it in a way that suggests it's a definite.

That said, I see you've had your hands full with a problematic contributor. I'll try and keep watch as well. Good working with you, as always -- Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Music publisher

Yeah, so I realise I added it and it's been noted as already being published, but is it worth keeping and having it state that the music has already been published? Or should we keep it as removed? Just wondering (and this goes to my same add for Iron Man). -- Harish (Talk) - 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Todd McCarthy has written a very positive and genuine review, he also mentions the director other people who were involved in filming, therefore I think it is reasonable to add this review to the article.Sha-Sanio (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote Irony

In the cola bottle factory, Banner threatens a bunch of thugs in a Portugese, but he gets it wrong and instead of his famous line he says "You're making me hungry, you wouldn't like me when I'm hungry..." The irony is, coincidentally or not, in a Hulk parody episode of Dexter's Lab, "Hunger Strikes" Dexter says the same thing. I just thought I'd mention it, it seemed like an odd coincidence.66.41.44.102 (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Leader

The cranium of Sterns isn't getting bigger, there are just "boils" "crawling" over his upper head, bit the cranium isn't getting bigger --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 03:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Blunder in the plot - what about Brazilian sovereignty?

There is a serious blunder in the plot, namely, the film depicts a full-fledged American military force, comprised of heavily armed commandos and officials, including a General (Ross), who illegally enter Brazilian territory (not shown, though obvious), deploy their weaponry and vehicles in the Rocinha favela, and engage in a chase that degenerates into a battle (with the Hulk), as if it were a routine activity. In reality, an incident of this nature would be regarded as a grave aggression and would immediately unleash a major international diplomatic crisis. Also, its inclusion would not be allowable in the plot of a not-so-fictional film. It is obvious that the film's makers badly lack some education in International Affairs, among other subjacts.--SciCorrector (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The goal of the Plot section is to summarize what occurs in the film, not analyze it. If this issue has received reliable coverage from third-party sources it may be suitable for inclusion under Reception or a similar section of the article, but otherwise this seems more appropriate for IMDB than Wikipedia. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The fine line between good and mixed reception

Where is this line? The 2003 movie is listed as having had a "mixed" reception with 62%, whereas this reboot is listed as having had a "positive" reception with 66%. Seems kind of strange. --Rogington (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Date in Plot section

This film is not connected to the other Hulk film made by Ang Lee and should not have the Dates of 2003 and 2008 placed in the plot. Most of this film follows the events of Iron Man 2 which is set around 2011 so therefore should be noted as such in the description, if need be. even though this film came out in 2008 it has a time frame to fit with the other films. This is just the information that I received on the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Mattseay3000 (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Box office

the box office figure cited here is wrong and doesnt correspond to the reference it given. if you follow the link the boc office is very different, $263,427,551 , almost a hundred million difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.248.19 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

yeah, serious. is anyone going to change this? if not i will in the next week. --63.80.176.98 (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

¿Spiderman?

During the fight between hulk and the abomination spiderman is in the background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.233.136.171 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No he's not. Live Light (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Post-credits scene?

The scene starring Robert Downey Jr. and William Hurt occurs before the credits in the UK DVD, and was the same for the UK cinema showing before that. Does this occur in other international versions and was there a reason for this change? I always thought the film ending on Banner's transformation made the most sense, and now it seems that this was actually the intention. --46.208.91.87 (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sterns' disappearance

I don't know but, whatever did happen to Sterns? He disappeared for the rest of the film after all, didn't he? After Abomination went after Hulk, that is Visokor (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lou Ferrigno cameo

Shouldn't it be mentioned that he was a security guard at the university and got the extra pizza during the film? I thought it funny and an interesting thing to note. Govvy (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It is already mentioned. See The Incredible Hulk (film)#Cast.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Norton's possible script contribution

A little further digging by TriiipleThreat and myself has found that Zak Penn says Norton didn't write any of the screenplay used. (See Entertainment Weekly citation added today). And the Writers Guild, which has sole jurisdiction over writing credits, only credits Penn. There's no solid evidence that anything Norton may have written made it in.

So the article body gives both sides of the story, mentioning Norton's possible script contribution. Bas there's no confirmation, and as Penn is the only credited screenwriter, only Penn's name should be in the infobox. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a bunch more info about it here that could be worked in. A bunch of stuff about what Norton wrote, what got cut, and how both submitted their names to the WGA. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the stuff you just added about WGA credits is explained about two paragraphs later. So the whole section may need to be cleaned up a bit. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Good points, all. Geez, where are my eyes these last couple of days? Thanks for the /Film link ... perhaps the missing link, as it were! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the /Film piece. Looks like a good blueprint of linked sources (LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, Collider) that we could go to for firsthand accounts by Leterrier, etc. I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a subsection of its own, since it's highly pertinent and since there are so many contrasting recollections. An individual section might be the best way to have room to address all these aspects with multiple citing.

Oy. To quote Ralph Kramden: "Norton!"   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a subsection under "Release"? The haggling over credits doesn't really seem to belong under "Development", haha. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I could see points toward either section. I guess either one works for me. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A single paragraph in the existing section should cover it but we should cover it from all sides while remaining neutral, since its basically he said vs. he said vs. he said (Norton, Penn, Leterrier). But for the infobox, we should just stick to WGA credits.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Link rot

Over the next few days I'm going to try to go through all the refs and fill them in (including archiving), while replacing the dead ones. If anyone else feels like pitching in too, that'd obviously be great haha. We're gonna have to do the same over at Iron Man (film), which also has several dead links and almost no ref archiving. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I mostly finished, but there are a few issues:

• There are two completely dead refs that need to be replaced, I put them at the bottom of the list
• There are three refs that webcitation.org wouldn't archive, and one that's behind a paywall, they're also at the bottom
• The only ref I didn't move to the "References" section was a comicbookmovie.com link. I know we generally consider that site unreliable, but this is a video interview, so I wasn't sure what to do with it. Just left it for now

Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in opening

"The film outgrossed its predecessor, grossing over $260 million in worldwide box office, making it the Marvel Cinematic Universe's lowest-grossing film." If it outgrossed its predecessor it cant be the lowest-grossing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.227.211 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. That second part was added -- and has been removed. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The first Hulk film is not part of the Cinematic Universe and therefore the statement was correct despite the confusion. 90.216.83.253 (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Off topic material in sequel section

Hey Musdan77. Could you maybe let me know what info in this section you thought was off topic? I read through it, and did not find much that seemed off topic as I did at Iron Man 3. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that basically everything starting with "In September 2012, Feige", in the third paragraph, is about the character and not about a sequel directly from this film. It would be alright to briefly mention the "Planet Hulk" thing, but whoever added that wanted to be able to include it here, so they wrote "Feige, while exploring all possible story options for a sequel film" -- but there's nothing in the source that says that. "Planet Hulk", etc. has nothing to do with the storyline of this film. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have read through the section several times, and everything is on the topic of a potential sequel. Just because the comics' "Planet Hulk" storyline doesn't have anything to do with the story of this film, does not mean that it has nothing to with a sequel to this film. If Marvel was to adapt "Planet Hulk" exactly as it is in the comics, it would be a sequel to this film, and we know that they would bring it more inline with their universe and this film anyway. There is no reason to remove this info, and definitely no reason to keep the off-topic tag here. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not "Just because the comics' "Planet Hulk"..." And you can't just read what's written there; you have to also read the sources given. Nothing in that last part of the section is directly related or relative to this film ...period! Trying to make some correlation is just speculation. And if someone wants to read that, they can do it at Hulk (comics) in other media. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If another Hulk movie is made, it will be a sequel to this film, no matter the story, cast or crew. It will be the second film in the Marvel Studios Hulk series, and it will be the second Hulk film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Until we are at such a point as to make an actual article for the film, or even a draft of an article, any information about the next Hulk film belongs here, and that is what is here. Nothing in the section should be moved anywhere else. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't make you understand if you simply refuse to. Talk about another Hulk move is not talk about a sequel to this film. That is a stretch -- to say the least. So, it is irrelevant, and clearly should be removed from this article. And a link can be given to the other article. --Musdan77 (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for a second Hulk film not being a sequel? A sequel is "a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one" and/or "something that takes place after or as a result of an earlier event", and that is exactly what a second Hulk film will be. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Adamstom, this is the second Hulk film (as it says in the lead), and I'm sure that you wouldn't say that it's a sequel to the 2003 movie (or else you would say "third film"). You actually make my point by giving those quotes. There is absolutely no indication that the next one will be a continuation of the storyline... etc. (rather, indications are to the contrary). So, you seem to be contradicting yourself. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

...This film is a reboot of the series. Batman Begins isn't a sequel to Batman & Robin, is it? Just because a film is released next, does not mean it is the sequel. In this case, the film was originally intended to be the second Hulk film, and just moved a bit closer to the comics and tv series. That changed when Norton re-wrote the script, and it became the second installment in the MCU, a universe that the 2003 movie is not a part of. Another Hulk movie will be set in the MCU as well, so it will not be a reboot. And even if it has absolutely no common story threads with this film, it will still develop similar themes and ideas, and will still take place as a result of this film. It will be a sequel that remains completely in-continuity with this film, even if it is telling a different story. I am pretty sure that I have not contradicted myself at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that this film doesn't constitute a sequel but rather is effectively a reboot. However, unless a source has clearly said that a future film is intended to be a sequel to this film, I don't think we should be saying that either. I also think arguments such as "any future Hulk films will be set in the MCU" should be avoided, as they're contextual; it's entirely possible the MCU will be discontinued at some point in the future and that even further down the line another Hulk film could be made independently of the MCU. Anyway, just my two cents. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Adamstom, you're making things confusing here. In the first part you're saying what I was saying (that it's not a sequel), then you give a sentence that seems to be contradictory: "it became the second installment in the MCU, a universe that the 2003 movie is not a part of." (??) Then what was the first installment? Then you say things about a future film without any proof (also, in your previous post, you gave quotes without links to where they come from). And even if what you're saying is true - and you can back it up with sources - that type of info would be better put on Hulk (comics) in other media. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can see how that got a bit confusing. Iron Man was the first installment in the MCU, with this film being the second. The 2003 film was never a part of the MCU, making this the first film in its own potential franchise, and the second film in a wider universe. The quotes I used were from google searching "define sequel". For now, all we know is that any plans or non-plans for a Hulk film will be the next MCU Hulk film, will be about Bruce Banner and the Hulk in some form, and will have to deal with the events of this film (as well as all the other important MCU events in some way), making it a sequel to this film, even if it isn't as strong a sequel as some other franchises, like how Iron Man 2 is very clearly the sequel to Iron Man. I agree that at least some of this info should be at the other media page as well, but if someone is reading this article, and wants to know about what is happening next in the franchise, they will want to know that Ruffalo has been hired for Avengers and will therefore replace Norton from now on, there have been conversations and plans to do another of these films, and that commonly rumoured storylines like planet hulk have been officially debunked. That sort of info is important in the context of this page, because someone interested in this film, as opposed to every hulk film and series, would want to read it here, rather than having to go to the other media page and wade through a whole lot of unrelated info. It really isn't off topic at all, and would be a glaring omission if removed. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You're going by your own way of thinking (WP:OR) and not by the way Wikipedia works. Everything needs to be verifiable -- especially if it's about the future. And things about the "franchise" go on the franchise page -- no matter what you think a reader might want.

On a side issue, the lead section just says, "It is the second installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe", and that's not found in the main text, much less any mention of Iron Man being the first installment. So, either it should be removed, or something added to the main body, or it needs a reference. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you feel is original research on my part? Also, I think you are confusing the Hulk in other media page with a Hulk in film page or Hulk film series page. The in other media articles or sections are for noting when and how said character has appeared in other media. An in film article or film series article is about the films themselves, including their development, and the info you are trying to remove is development for a potential sequel to this film. For instance, the Iron Man in other media article has info concerning potential appearances of the character and potential portrayals of the character by Downey, while the potential sequel section at the Iron Man 3 page has info concerning a potential sequel, which includes some of that Iron Man / Downey stuff, as well as other general sequel stuff. So at the Hulk in other media page, info on the future of the Hulk appearing in a film, and who would portray the character (i.e. Ruffalo is signed on, a film won't be made till after Avengers 2, etc.) should go there, while other non character specific but still potential sequel specific, like potential storylines, should go here, which it does.

Concerning the second installment line in the lead, it definitely should stay, so it probably just needs a ref added to the lead, unless you want to add something sourced to the production section. All the MCU film articles have a line explaining which installment in the universe the film is, so it wouldn't make sense for this article to not have it. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying that there will be a "sequel to this film", but you never give any proof (source) to back that up. That's what original research is. In the first part of the section, it talks about that there was a development of a potential sequel to this film, but it didn't work out. Then comes the irrelevancy. And there is no "Hulk in film" article. So, essentially that's what the Film section of Hulk in other media is. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I never intended to say that there will be a sequel to this film, just that there could potentially be one, which is not original research because if there is a film there is always potential for a sequel to it, albeit at varying degrees. And as I said above, since there is no Hulk in film article, any info pertaining to a sequel or potential sequel to this film belongs in the potential sequel section of this article, not at the in other media page, which is about the appearance of a character, and the portrayal of said character, in other media. Having actual film development info there would be off topic itself, while here it is where it belongs. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you have said several times (even in bold) that the next Hulk film will be a sequel to this film. Secondly, even just speculation of a sequel needs to have a reliable source to be included in the article. You've said a lot of stuff here (a lot of it just repetitious), but not one time have you given a link/source. And I'm not the only editor here who has said that you've made claims without any source to back it up. As I just said in my previous post, the first part of the section talks about a potential sequel, and that's fine, but the second part talks about things that are not about this film. I don't know how many times I have to say that. You also haven't shown anything to back up what you claim about "Hulk in other media" -- which I completely disagree with. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If you go back and read what I actually said, I was talking about a potential sequel, because I know that a sequel has not been confirmed. I have not added any new unsourced or unverifiable information to the article, so I don't know what your problem with that is. For the Hulk in other media stuff, that was just me looking at those types of articles and using WP:COMMON SENSE. And as I keep on saying, nothing in this section is not related to a potential sequel. I have given numerous reasons for why this is, but they can basically be summed up as: if Marvel Studios makes a second Hulk film then it will be some sort of continuation of this film, even if the same cast/crew do not return, or even if the supporting characters are different. This will not be true if another studio takes on the character and reboots the franchise again, or if the MCU is 'reset'. So far, none of the info provided has mentioned either of those two things, they are all about Mark Ruffalo or Kevin Feige and talk about where the film could fit into the MCU. So if we have a source claiming that another company will be making the film, or that the MCU is going to restart so any potential new Hulk film is not going to be in this one, then it would be off topic to have that info here, but unless you can provide a source saying that is the case, then the info should stay here, in the potential sequel section.

Ultimately, this issue boils down to whether a potential next Hulk film is actually potentially sequel to this film or not, and it seems that your only reasoning for for why this wouldn't be the case is that the story of the next film might be a separate story to this one. I have pointed out that a sequel does not necessarily have to follow the story exactly, both because its definition (here) does not require that to be the case, and I would now point out that there have been multiple films with almost completely different storylines to previous films that are considered sequels. I think you need to come up with a different reason for why the information doesn't belong there. I have had several thorough reads of the section, and the only info that I think might be off topic is the first line of the last paragraph, however, that gives context to how many potential actual sequels there could be, so again it really isn't off topic. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There you go again, rambling on and on with hardly any substance and mostly repeating what you said before. And again, your "summation" shows nothing to back it up (OR). We don't add things to an article speculating what might happen and wait to see if it does. There needs to be something solid (source) showing a correlation. Let's look at the last paragraph of the section. The first sentence has nothing to do with this film; the second sentence has nothing to do with this film; and so on and so on. And, I don't know how you can get what you say from the definition that you give. To the contrary. You say, "there have been multiple films with almost completely different storylines to previous films". Sequels? Name one. --Musdan77 (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

...right... it seems to me that you have no interest in discussing the matter at all, and in fact have no interest in seeing any perspective other than your own, no matter what logic or reason is given to you, so I see no reason in wasting time by continuing to attempt to reach some sort of consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your "logic or reason" is just that: your own ideas. You never have given any sources -- which says to me that you can't back up your claims/ideas, so we keep going in circles and can't get anywhere. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking for sources? I am not proposing we add anything to an article or change one, we are just having a discussion using WP:COMMON SENSE. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that the only wikilink that you have given here is to the page "Ignore all rules", which as it says is an essay of opinions and not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Here are a couple of links to bullet points that you should read: WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE & WP:TALK#FACTS. No, you're not wanting to add anything, because what you want is already there. I'm just asking that you back up your claims that those they should be there with something credible. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you want proof of? All that I have "claimed" is that everything in the section that only pertains to another solo Hulk film also pertains to a potential sequel to this film. Assuming that that is what this ridiculous argument is about, here we go again: For the next Hulk film to not be a sequel to this film, it will have to be in a separate continuity or universe. I say this because, as the definition I provided above says, a sequel does not necessarily have to be a direct continuation of the story, it can also just further develop the same themes, or take place because of the first one. Therefore, even if the next (potential) MCU Hulk film does not continue on the storyline of this film, it will still be a sequel to this film, as it will have Bruce Banner / The Hulk in it, and that relationship was established in this film here. Any further exploration of those characters in a film specifically about them will be a sequel to this film, direct or not. So the only reason why this "questionable" info would be off topic in the section, is if the film was not an MCU film. Given that all the info comes directly from Mark Ruffalo or Kevin Feige, that there is absolutely no evidence or proof that the MCU is going to end before this potential film is made, and that every time info about a potential Marvel Studios film is released it is rightfully placed under the umbrella of the MCU, I see no good, justifiable reason for why this potential film wont be in the MCU. Now if we had a reliable source stating that this is not the case, that the film will be made by a different studio, or that the MCU will end and any potential Hulk film will be in a different continuity, then removing this info would definitely be the right thing to do. But that is not the case, and when there is no proof to the contrary does it not make sense to revert to the default? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you don't give anything to back up your own opinion (your basic premise). There is nothing in the article or its sources, that I can see, that says what you claim. You are misinterpreting your definition, and if that's all you're going by then that's not enough. What I'm saying (and trying to say from the beginning) is that in order for something pertaining to a future project related to the subject to be added/included in the article there would need to be source(s) to verify that, and since there's not, it needs to be removed -- because that is a violation. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, what do you want proof of? That entire statement is just vague accusations, I can't tell from it what you want. Just tell me what you feel I need to back up so then I can look at doing so. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, can we get a really simple summary of what this dispute is about so that other editors who may wish to comment can do so without having to read the back-and-forth? It seems we're straying from whatever the original point was and you both seem to be at an impasse. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to help, but I myself still do not know what the other user's point is, or what they actually want to discuss. What I can say is that I don't see anything in the section that is out of place, and have made multiple attempts at explaining why that is, but continuously get the same vague accusations/replies. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If I am reading this correctly, I think Musdan77 is trying to say that adding info about a potential Ruffalo film or the story line for that film here is improper because we don't know that any future Hulk film will be a direct sequel to this film. The next Hulk film that appears in the MCU may be (once again) another "soft" reboot, with only minimal ties to this film. So I believe that is why they are saying to put more of the info regarding a Ruffalo solo film to Hulk in other media. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Bingo! Thank you, Favre1fan93. That's pretty much it exactly. You may not agree with me, but at least you understand where I'm coming from (I didn't think I was making it hard to understand). --Musdan77 (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome. I may tend to agree with your side now. If you want to work up a proposed split of content in your sandbox so all can see what you think should stay here and what should go, I would support that, and work on it with you to implement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Any thoughts to what I suggested above, in presenting what you feel should be split out? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a lot going on for the holidays (and other stuff) right now, so I haven't had the time to concentrate on that, but I will (unless you feel like starting it). –Musdan77 (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm in no rush. This can be done when you have more time, since you had an opinion on what should stay and go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of Edward Norton on Screenplay by, Infobox listing

For a long time it has been my wonder as to why it is that Wikipedia has chosen to exclude Edward Norton from the Screenplay Infobox listing. It is common knowledge, acknowledged by Marvel Studios and director, Louis Leterrier that the original screenplay by Zak Penn (who left prior to filming) was altered daily by actor/screenwriter, Norton. The work which he contributed was not listed in film credits, but was discussed in the presses. Because of his lack-of-acknowledgement in the credits, he did not return for the The Avengers movie. Doesn't it make sense that Wikipedia list his work -- even if it is listed as (uncredited) ?

Almost all of the screenplays have uncredited script doctors work on them. There are also several types of credits that an author can receive (written by, story by, screenplay by, etc.) plus there is the "and" vs. "&" listing, so deciding where to place the uncredited writer can be difficult. For simplicity alone, it is easier to stick to just the credited writers. Bottom line, it is a consensus decision. I hope this helps. - DinoSlider (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, but given the fact that the director and producers have discussed the fact that the film that was made, was HUGELY influenced by Norton's daily re-writes; and that the original script changed dramatically -- it makes sense to include him as a writer. For example -- Ant-Man was originally worked on by Edgar Wright who left the project and because of this the script was greatly altered by Paul Rudd. These two individuals receive credit on the article; and yet the case is different with The Incredible Hulk somehow. I think it would benefit the site to cite Norton's additional work. --Burningblue52 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As stated in the article, "the Writers Guild of America decided to credit the script solely to Penn, who argued Norton had not dramatically changed his script." If the Writers Guild did not find his changes to be credit worthy, then the info box should not to add weight to his contribution. It would be different if this was a 60 year old movie when the crediting process was less defined. It seems sufficient that the text of the article clearly discusses his involvement. - DinoSlider (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thats because we only list WGA credits in the Infobox, which Wright and Rudd received unlike Norton.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Rotten Tomatoes

By following the link provided to the in-line cite [1] it is clear that Rotten Tomatoes have indeed updated their critics consensus. Those reverting the IP and reporting s/he to WP:AIV should probably take note. Gricehead (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

No issue with that, but renaming "Rotten Tomatoes" to "rotten tomatoes" is clearly erroneous. DonIago (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. But very little evidence of AGF in the three reverts and level 2,3&4 warnings applied by Jim1138 prior to that. I think I'd be a little hacked off, to say the least. Gricehead (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Gricehead Doniago I messed up on that one. Thanks for letting me know. I left an apology on the editor's page. Thanks again! Jim1138 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Future

Can I add this? "Mark Ruffalo, who would later work with Leterrier on Now You See Me, began his role as Banner / Hulk in The Avengers, after Feige said he chose not to bring back Norton. --LegerPrime (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It's trivia for this article that has no bearing on the info, nor the fact that Ruffalo became the new portrayer of Banner/Hulk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It's worded trivial in nature. A statement saying that Mark Ruffalo was hired by Feige following the dispute with Norton, is factual. That would constructive and should be included.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Screenwriting credits in Infobox

I'm coming back to this discussion as it's preposterous as to why we would exclude Edward Norton (as Edward Harrison) in the screenwriting credits. I have re-added him, as credited on all theatrical posters (as credit as such by the studio); and added an 'efn' note to explain that Penn was solely credited on-screen. This is not trivial, it is factual. The studio had a huge dispute with the actor over him receiving no credit on-screen. He also left the role because of it. The studio(s) involved possibly placed his name on the poster to acknowledge the mess of it all(?) --- we don't know the reason. But it is there. The infobox should acknowledge that credit given, as such.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The note idea was not bad, but including him in the infobox was. He never received final writing credit, so we shouldn't indicate that he did. The note, now next to Penn, notes this. Same situation like Solo: A Star Wars Story. Lord and Miller are not included in the director field, because they never received that credit, despite working on the film first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Future

I wish to add this:

"Fans started a petition for Marvel to extend Ruffalo's contract for appear in an Incredible Hulk 2 and for Universal to let Disney have the distribution rights to any potential post-Avengers 4 Hulk films."

Have any other sources reported on it? I suspect fans start petitions for things all the time... I'd prefer to see some indication that this petition is somehow notable beyond a reference on a site specifically devoted to reporting such things. DonIago (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

References

And what about "Mr. Blue"?

How come no follow-up on Mr. Blue ? ? ?

Not only did he have a "taste" of the blood/serum, but it was shown that he had a physical reaction (and he obviously liked it given the smile on his his face).

I've always wondered why there wasn't a follow-up of any kind.

Anybody know?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D: You might find information on that at wikia. They usually have lots of trivia. Regards, Guywan (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Bruce banner is the hulk stop changing it when it is Bruce banner / hulk on every other mcu movie featuring the character

There's zero logic behind changing it when that's his alias and it was Bruce banner / hulk for over a decade Hhggtg3279 (talk) 09:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Look https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(2012_film) it's Bruce banner / hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And if you look at the article you will see references showing that Ruffalo provided voicework for Hulk, which is what is lacking for the Norton Hulk. No one is arguing that Bruce Banner is not The Hulk. The issue is there are no references to show that Norton portrayed Banner in his Hulk form. Greyjoy ^talk 10:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Who voices him is irrelevant the general setup for a superhero is their civilian name / alter ego, look at Emil blonsky he is voiced by a different person but it says Emil blonksy / abomination and on the avengers film it's Bruce banner / hulk despite mark rufflo voicing the hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Look at the avengers and any other superhero they have their civilian name / with the slash meaning also called and their ego, the hulk which is banner alternate half, the slash is to denote that they are two sperate identities but in reality they belong to the same person, any comic book fan would know this Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Look at these https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Avengers_(2012_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Infinity_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Endgame

All have Bruce Banner / Hulk and it was Banner / Hulk on the 2008 film for 14 years and there is already a section on his voice actor that's separate the character of Bruce Banner is most commonly Calle do the hulk which is by its banner / hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yo Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

G Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Https Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Check out behindthevoiceactors.com/Edward-Norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

That shows he voiced the hulk in few scenes in the movie and throughout the entire video game which is actually unused dialogue norton recorded for the film that never made it into the final version Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

In light of the repeated edits by IPs despite multiple requests to come here, I've requested an increase in page protection and/or blocks for said IPs. DonIago (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just provided you evidence with his voice actor role what more do u want and why do u have ri ban innocent users Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Look he voiced the hulk in a few scenes and most of the norton recording was unused and repurposed for the 2008 video game of the same name Hhggtg3279 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please make it clear when you're replying to comments by prefacing your remarks with colons (:) to indent them. You're making this discussion very hard to follow.

Secondly, my only interest here right now is in preventing the disruption being caused by the IP editors who are ignoring WP:BRD and repeated requests to come here to discuss. I really hope those IPs aren't you being a sock.

Lastly, perhaps you should give other editors a chance to weigh in here? One editor's opinion isn't going to constitute a consensus, and I think you've made your feelings clear. DonIago (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Why exactly is wikiapedia like this now again remind me when did editing became this tedious, and you completely disregarded what I said about norton Hhggtg3279 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

www.imdb.com/name/nm0001570/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_filmography

Norton portrays Banner and Hulk he does motion capture for hulk and in some cases does the grunts but any hulk dialogue is another guy but still he voiced most of his grunting noises and the hulk doesn't have many lines anyway Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok how's this it clearly states in it norton portrays Bruce Banner and the hulk in the 2008 film, this is an old article from 2008 by the Seattle times concerning the release of the 2008 reboot.

www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/movies/the-incredible-hulk-brings-out-the-best-8212-and-the-beast-8212-in-edward-norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one www.mtv.com/news/2593169/tim-blake-nelson-will-battle-hulk-as-the-leader-in-incredible-hulk-2-with-or-without-ed-norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Proof norton voiced hulk

There www.imdb.com/name/nm0001570/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/Edward_Norton Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok here one that not a fan site, www.behindthevoiceactors.com/Edward-Norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It even says on the filmography for norton that he portrays both Banner and the hulk, not just Banner that is why it should be presented as Banner / Hulk because he performs the motion capture for the hulk and also the vocals in particular the grunts. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_filmography

Hhggtg3279 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok how's this it clearly states in it norton portrays Bruce Banner and the hulk in the 2008 film, this is an old article from 2008 by the Seattle times concerning the release of the 2008 reboot.

www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/movies/the-incredible-hulk-brings-out-the-best-8212-and-the-beast-8212-in-edward-norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's another one www.mtv.com/news/2593169/tim-blake-nelson-will-battle-hulk-as-the-leader-in-incredible-hulk-2-with-or-without-ed-norton/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Hhggtg3279 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that you chose to disregard my request that you use indents to better preserve the flow of conversation, and with regards to giving other editors a chance to weigh in on this in favor of adding another WP:WALLOFTEXT, I have nothing further to say on this matter at this time. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've given my proof there Hhggtg3279 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, this is going to be the end of this conversation: None of these sources says that Norton played the Hulk. None. The Seattle Times newspaper is a reliable source, but the article does not say anything about Norton portraying or voicing the Hulk. MTV News is a reliable source, but the the article does not say anything about Norton portraying or voicing the Hulk. Behindthevoices is NOT a reliable source as far as I know, but anyhow it does not say that Norton voices the Hulk; it just says he voices Bruce Banner. The bottom line is that you have failed to prove your point. Your insistence here is becoming disruptive and you need to STOP. I will also post a warning on your talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Your not my mum and I'll find you that article Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Found it www.awn.com/vfxworld/incredible-hulk-back-basics Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Proof Norton portrayed both hulk and banner

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/movies/10hulk.html Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Another one here //www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/movies/10hulk.html Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

//www.tribpub.com/gdpr/nydailynews.com/ Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm the New York daily ones it clearly states norton provided the motion capture for the hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

www.awn.com/vfxworld/incredible-hulk-back-basics

Again norton does motion capture portrays Banner and hulk Hhggtg3279 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

So, AWN says the motion capture with Mr. Norton was done during the transformation into the Hulk and back again, but goes to great lengths to describe the animation of the Hulk character without reference to the actor. Meanwhile, IMDB lists Lou Ferrigno as "Voice of The Incredible Hulk / Security Guard." [2] I can't lie, if I ever knew that I had forgotten, and it kind of made my day. At any rate, from what I am initially seeing, Mr. Ferrigno has a better claim to "playing" the Hulk in the 2008 film. This is subject to change if I find new information, or if I am exposed to lethal amounts of gamma rays, and yet somehow survive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The AWN one states that "the faces were mostly hand animated using motion capture of Edward Norton". This article from DigitalTrends makes it clear that both Norton and Roth did quite a lot of mo-cap for the film: "Norton and co-star Tim Roth...also got in on the action by filming more than 2,500 different takes of their characters’ movements in front of 37 digital cameras. The pair also used phosphorescent paint and lighting techniques to record some of their facial expressions and mannerisms". Empire Online says "Edward Norton got to do some Hulk acting as a film reference". I think it's reasonable to say that Norton plays the Hulk.

As for the voice, in this short interview with Ferrigno, he mentions filming a cameo but not doing voice work - remember, IMDB is user-generated, so Ferrigno as the Hulk's voice could very well be a joke or assumption that someone inserted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oooh, self-trout. Better search parameters got me this, [3], and this, which all mention that Ferrigno voiced the Hulk in 03 and 08. I think that settles the voice issue pretty definitively, but there's still the mo-cap to consider. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

No self-trout necessary! You're quite right about IMDB as a sourcce. I'm still a bit unsure about saying Norton "played" the Hulk though, even in mo-cap terms. While AWN does indeed say motion capture from Mr. Norton was used for the face, it also says "Ultimately, four performers were used [for the roles of Hulk and Abomination --D], each with their own style of motion, which led to critical decisions as whom to cast not only to the character, but to the distinct action too." Certainly, if there's a general agreement that Mr. Norton should be credited, I won't overturn any tables, but I would still lean against it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Going on these terms it shouldn't be Emil blonksy/ abomination this should be separated like the the hulk considering abomination had a completely different voice actor too Hhggtg3279 (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"Mr. Blue" teaser

Just before the final action shifts from Mr. Blue's lab, we see him down on the floor right below a machine that has Hulk-stuff leaking out. A drop or two lands on Mr. Blue and we see his face/head going through some minor contortions. Just as the scene changes, we see Mr. Blue's eyes go wide (nearly maniacal) and a big smile/grin appear.

If that wasn't a set-up/teaser for a future film, then I don't know what a set-up/teaser looks like.

Anyone know why this wasn't followed through on?

And would this be important enough to be in the article?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Letterier's Comments

Letterier long time ago posted on reddit about the problems he and Norton had on set of the film and one of the things he cleared up is the rumor that Mark Ruffalo was originally his choice for Banner to be false, as there he clearly stated on his post that Ruffalo wasn't chosen until the character's recasting in The Avengers, so the words in the cast section mentioning Ruffalo should be removed to put the false rumors to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.212.70 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no evidence that that reddit account actually belongs to Louis Letterier. YgorD3 (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Script mentions

So while some person posted a script of Iron Man that probably wasn't posted legally, there also is a script of The Incredible Hulk which strangely enough bears similarities with the novelization so maybe it can be agreed here that the scripts are real, but probably not legally posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.160.115.63 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC) http://pdfscripts.weebly.com/uploads/9/1/6/8/916864/incredible20hulk2c20the.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.160.115.63 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)