"Incredible Hulk" Blu-ray: Planned with 70 Minutes of Cut Footage? (1 Viewer)

[Jari K]

'Incredible Hulk' Blu-ray Planned with 70 Minutes of Cut Footage | High-Def Digest

Louis Leterrier says fans can expect 70 MINUTES of Additional Footage on the INCREDIBLE HULK Blu-ray DVD!

"Question: I have to ask you…there’s been a lot of talk about the 2 different cuts that exist on the movie. Obviously the DVD is going to have more footage.

Louis Leterrier: Yeah.

Question: So, could you talk about what was cut out of the film, like is there 15 minutes?

Louis Leterrier: No, the final way of me cutting this…maybe there’s like 10-15 minutes of stuff, but there’s a lot of stuff like on the Blue-ray I think we’ll have 70 minutes of stuff.

Question: Seventeen or…

Louis Leterrier: Seventy. 7-0.

Question: 70!

Louis Leterrier: Yeah, because you shoot a lot of stuff, yeah. What’s another picture? Yeah, but that’s what great. It’s like the back story. It’s more the sequel to the Ang Lee movie.

Question: I have to ask you…so the Blue-ray…the DVD just has a little bit…

Louis Leterrier: No the Blue-ray…it’s whatever we can put on the DVD. Like DVD’s you have like 3 hours of like yeah…you have a limit of 3 hours of footage and stuff. The Blue-ray you have something like 100 hours, so if they do a double DVD but like the Blue-Ray is what’s going to be good. So on the Blue-ray I’m trying to put as much of the stuff…

I want to put everything we shot, you know? I’m not the kind of guy that likes to keep the stuff for myself. I’m like, okay you student filmmakers, here’s what I did right and here’s what I did wrong and in some of the stuff, in the 70 minutes, there’s some great stuff and there’s some really horrible stuff, but you’ll see it all, you know?"

Wow. Let´s hope, that this will be true (I mean, perhaps studio won´t "approve" of this plan or something...). I have nothing against these "extended/Dir.cut/etc"-versions, as long as the original is available.

edit: Just to make sure... The film is "The Incredible Hulk (2008)", with Edward Norton..

 

[ChadMcCallum]

Strange. He was on Attack of the Show (a G4 show) and he was asked if he was going to release a directors cut and he said no, that the theatrical cut was the directors cut. Maybe they'll include Norton's cut or just include the deleted scenes separate from the film.

 

[Jari K]

Quote from the link:

**"I’m like, okay you student filmmakers, here’s what I did right and here’s what I did wrong and in some of the stuff, in the 70 minutes, there’s some great stuff and there’s some really horrible stuff, but you’ll see it all, you know?"**

So IF there´ll be some kind of "extended version" with additional 70 minutes, it´s not "Director´s cut". Not all longer versions are "Directors' versions" anyway.

 

[PaulDA]

I strongly suspect, from his comments, that the extra footage will be separate from the film, with commentary to explain why the footage didn't make the cut. There are probably as many alternative as extended scenes and the former are not easily integrated to make a new cut of a film (though they can be, of course).

 

[Paul Arnette]

I must admit I am a bit confused about this as well. I haven't been following the production of this film too closely, but it is well known that Norton wanted a longer cut. However, I had also heard that a large part of the reason why the film was trimmed from the ~140 minute cut Norton was pushing to the eventual 116 minute theatrical cut had to do with theater distributor concerns.

That said, I'd rather see both Leterrier and Norton's cuts on the eventual Blu-ray Disc than 70 minutes of all the cut scenes 'dumped' on there. From the reviews I've read, it sounded like the film could've done with a bit of fleshing out. Alas, they'll probably save Norton's cut for a double-dip if it ever sees the light at all.

 

[TravisR]

I hope and pray that all 70 minutes isn't reinserted into the movie. It's one thing if they add some material back in but 70 minutes of additions would be ridiculous.

 

[Jari K]

I´m not sure, where these "Leterrier cut" and "Norton cut" comes from? I don´t want to sound rude, but it´s not that the world knows two "cuts"; Leterrier and Norton.

So far we have had only various rumors (e.g. Leterrier talks about them in detail in the interview-link) and to me they´re just that; rumors. Debates and arguments happen when people make movies. And there´s also the pressure from the studio. Sure, "something" happened. But then again; so what?

 

[PatWahlquist]

Whatever it takes to make a better picture. I just saw it and it's just terrible. There's nothing new or interesting in it and it just made me keep asking why we needed another Hulk film. As vocal as Norton has been about this cut, I really hope we get to see his version on BD.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Alas, this is what I have been afraid of from day one. I kinda, sorta promised I would take my son to see this on Father's Day, but this kind of word of mouth coupled with no DLP showings in my area are really making me hope he forgets I said we'd go.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I too must concur w/ others that I can't imagine wanting all 70 minutes of cut footages reinserted into the film -- and it does sound like he's probably talking mostly about providing deleted scenes rather than a full 70-minute longer cut (though he's also a bit confusing in the way he says things too).

When I first read about it, I was like that's crazy if he really wants all 70 minutes added back in, especially since he explicitly says some of that stuff is "really horrible".

Anyway, given bad reviews and word-of-mouth, I'll just save this for a rental -- and maybe it won't put me to sleep like Ang Lee's Hulk did.

_Man_

 

[Nick Graham]

Paul, take your son, as the wife and I caught it last night and we both thought it was fantastic. A very worthy companion piece to Iron Man. Norton is fantastic, as is the rest of the cast. Marvel is now two for two.

I would really like a Norton cut on the Blu-Ray, as I am excited about seeing the Arctic segment (namely a great scene where Banner loses hope, only to be let known that doing so is not an option), as well as the scene with Doc Samson and Bruce that was in the original trailer. I don't believe Norton's cut is some three hour epic, I think the main debate was what to keep in and what to cut. Norton wanted a few more character moments, whereas Marvel wanted to keep it pretty briskly paced. I think the current cut is a good mesh of both.

I'm thinking word of mouth on this is going to be very enthusiastic. We had a packed house and applause when the end credits hit (it's hard not to want to applaud after the very last scene). I appreciated Lee's Hulk for trying something different, but I can't get halfway through it without getting bored. Bored is never something you feel with the new film, whether it's in the action scenes or the many great quieter character moments.

 

[PaulDA]

The director's first language is French, not English (which would account for some of the confusion).

I actually liked Lee's version quite a bit (I know, I'm in the minority--along with Roger Ebert). I will likely see (if time permits) the new one in the cinema and will reserve judgment until having seen it. As for the idea of "an extended cut"--I'm of two minds on that. Several such cuts are successful (IMO) but not all. So I hope, with the BD release, IF there is a longer cut, it will not be IN PLACE of the original but supplemental to it.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Nick, thanks. I'll take him. It isn't like he's going to forget I promised him anyway. He's got a mind like a steel trap as far as promises to be taken to the movies go. The apple hasn't fallen very far from the tree.

 

[Brent M]

Couldn't disagree more. This was a great flick that finally erased the horrible Ang Lee debacle from my consciousness. I can now pretend that movie never existed and enjoy the first true entry in the Hulk franchise. Can't wait for the Blu-Ray.

 

[PaulDA]

I never understood the hate for Lee's version. I understand the disappointment that it lacks "action" for a movie about a half-ton mass of inexhaustible strength and rage, but I thought the character development was good. I also liked that Banner was "aware" while he was the Hulk, something I fear may have been abandoned in this version. Oh well, to each his own, I guess.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Fear not.

 

[Brent M]

No offense, but I thought it was absolutely horrible. I saw it in the theater and honestly couldn't wait for it to end. In fact, I almost just got up and left, but I was able to make it through to the end. When it came out on DVD, I figured I'd give it another chance in hopes that I would like it better with a repeat viewing. Didn't happen. Actually, I was even more miserable trying to watch it the second time around. Thankfully, the new film blows Lee's version away and gives us a Hulk film that's actually worth watching.

 

[Ron-P]

Never understood it either, I think it's one of the best comic-book movies to date. With 70 minutes being added in why bother seeing this in the theater?

 

[TravisR]

There may be a total of 70 minutes of deleted scenes and added footage on home video but there's no way that they're going to add all 70 minutes to the movie.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Re: Ang Lee's Hulk, I actually liked it. However, and I am going to get in trouble for this, I always thought it gave the character way too much credit. The Hulk is never what I would classify as very deep. The character may have evolved, along with its various skin tones, in depth, but I always remember him as a rather stupid creature and not much of a superhero. So, falling back on or drawing on the TV show is probably the right idea if a commericial success is what is desired, and it is obvious it is. Ang Lee's Hulk, in my opinion, was a classic case of an extremely talented director trying to elevate very slipshod Jekyll and Hyde-derivative material past its breaking point.