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

[Jari K]

Well, you never know, but at this point it doesn´t sound fully believable. I guess studio just might say, that "look, this is not happening - just add 15 minutes max". I´m sure that the "extended"-version is coming.

I pretty much agree with both PaulA and PaulDA here. Ang Lee's Hulk was pretty good, but I also understand the "lack of silly comic action"-part.. And where was the decent villain in the end?

IMO, Ang Lee's Hulk was better than most of these superhero-movies, including Spider-Man 1, FF 1, Daredevil.. Not as good as X-men 1-2 (didn´t cared about the 3rd..), Batman Begins, etc, though.

So yes, it was a decent movie (Ang Lee's Hulk).

 

[Ron-P]

Why not? Jackson did it with Lord of the Rings.

 

[TravisR]

He didn't add an extra 50% to LOTR though. On average, the extended versions of LOTR movies didn't even add 20% to the running time.

If 70 more minutes actually works in the movie, great. It's just that I can't believe that they could make a movie that works best at 3 hours, cut more than an hour out and still have a comprehensible movie for the theatrical cut.

 

[Brent M]

When the director was interviewed on Attack of the Show last week he clearly stated that the version of the movie on DVD/Blu-Ray would be exactly what was seen in theaters. He said that everything he shot will be included on the Blu-Ray, but I'm pretty sure he meant there will be an extensive offering of deleted scenes. There's no way he's adding 70 minutes to form a super extended cut of the film.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well, I'd actually think it a big insult to Ang Lee (and his Hulk) to even mention either of the two FF films, if we're concerned about decent-to-good/solid films in the genre. I never saw the theatrical version of Daredevil, but found the director's cut(?) to be pretty decent, which seems to be the general consensus (that it is definitely a significantly better version). I thought Spidey #1 was a bit too melodramatic and heavyhanded wrt Peter Parker's lack of self-esteem and such and maybe not as well developed on the Spidey side of the equation (plus the CGI/SFX just didn't seem very good).

I guess Ang Lee's Hulk was striving to be more like a "serious" Batman flick, but missed the mark in the end.

_Man_

 

[Brandon Conway]

I'll definitely pick this up. Saw the film, really liked it after going in with low expectations. I'll be interested in seeing all the deleted/alternate scenes, but I think the film as finished for theaters is pretty solid.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I don't think Hulk is shallow at all. The concept is actually simplicity, but there is alot of depth to be mined, as Peter David's exceptional run on the character showed.

The Hulk is about fear, control, and power. The Ultimates comic got a few things right...specifically that the Hulk is the human nuclear warhead. He's a weapon of mass destruction in the body of a regular guy (I didn't like how the Ultimates portrayed the Hulk - a bit too juvenile and unsubtle), and the guy has the perpetual fear of destroying everything he cares about when he loses control.

I think the new film conveyed that very well.

Anyways, I've always thought the Hulk was one of the better properties to adapt. Both for the carnage and the lessons

And he's a monster, not a superhero.

Looking forward to the home release. I'd like to see the deleted scenes, but the theatrical version is fine as is.

 

[David Podjasek]

Not sure where people are saying they've heard negative comments about the new movie. Feels like the first person to post in this thread that had seen it didn't like it and everyone kind of took their cue from there.

As for me, I thought the new movie was incedibly exciting, a much better mix between story and action than the first. I was worried that the bad guy would just be another big monster with no real charcter but those fears were completely groundless. He is actually someone with a very clear motivation and it works very well. It made complete sense (unlike, say, the ending of the first). In addition, I found the CGI to be absolutely incredible and to rarely have that "cartoon look" that sometimes reared it's ugly head in the first. I was really worried that I would find the actors to be a big step down (particularly Liv and the General), but again those fears were completely proven wrong. In the end, I enjoyed myself almost as much as Iron Man, which was quite unexpected to me. A few months ago this movie looked like junk to me.

As for Ang Lee's film, I can understand what he was going for but it just seemed to be the wrong approach for the movie in many places. I loved the actors they chose and thought they did well, but the mutant poodles and the father character really kind of ruined it for me.

I worry that people will skip over the new one because either (a) they saw the first one and hated it and assume the second will be more of the same or (b) they saw the first and liked it and will assume the "reboot" is just a stupid action movie.

 

[Brent M]

Well, it did make $55 million opening weekend so there are a lot of people out there, myself included, who were able to get past how much they disliked the Ang Lee film and give this reboot a chance.

 

[Ron-P]

I'll give the reboot a chance when it hits Blu-ray as a blind buy. Looks good but from what I've seen in the trailers, not as good as Lee's version.

 

[Jari K]

Some early details...

Universal to Go 'Green-Ray' with 'Incredible Hulk' | High-Def Digest

It seems, that "70 minutes of additional footage" was just an rumor at this point.. Perhaps saved for the "Dir cut"-release later on, or something...?

 

[Bleddyn Williams]

Saving it for a double-dip seems sadly likely.

 

[Brent M]

That blows. If this release doesn't have all the additional footage I'll just rent it and wait for the inevitable extended cut.

 

[Martin Henry]

I didn't think there'd ever be an extended cut on there. 70mins of footage? Please, internet hyperbole of the highest order. Nowhere in the press release did the Director mention 70mins being added back into the film. Nowhere.

 

[Brent M]

Maybe not in a press release, but I saw a TV interview with him where he clearly stated there was a ton of cut footage he intended to put back into the film for a DVD/Blu-Ray release.

 

[TravisR]

Yeah, they won't put 70 minutes back in there but you can bet that if the director was talking about that much footage being dropped before the movie was even in theaters that there will eventually be an extended cut with some of that 70 minutes edited back in.

 

[Jari K]

I guess we know for sure when the "Dir Cut" arrives. "70 min" added to the film seems unlikely, but you never know.. Or should we start 10 page debate on this one also?

Martin: Read the first post in this thread. "70 min"-thing didn´t refer to any "press releases". We just speculate here based on the interview. It always helps to read the whole thread...

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

I find that highly unlikely, considering his interview states that it's footage he cut for a reason, some of it really bad and that he never states he's putting it back in.

 

[Mike_Richardson]

Whether it's 70 minutes or 30 minutes, there's no doubt we will get an extended cut of the movie. Between Norton's comments, the director's comments, the stories that ran about how much was taken out -- I don't think that's "rampant speculation," it seems to be common sense.

But obviously that's being reserved for a double dip :frowning:

 

[Brent M]

I'm not sure which interview you're referring to, but I'm definitely not imagining the TV interview I saw with him right around the time of Hulk's release in theaters. It was on G4's Attack of the Show and he CLEARLY stated there was a ton of cut footage he planned to include on the DVD/Blu-Ray.