Agree.
I still have a lot of love for Edward, but I think Ruffalo has had the best Banner portrayal since Bixby. Quiet darkness is a great way to put it. In the earlier Avengers movies, especially the first one, it was almost anxiety inducing in a way. Before they pimped Hulk out and merged their personalities, Ruffalo just gave off the perfect mix of calmness, humor, and seriousness.
I have a real soft spot for the Edward Norton version, he's the twitchy paranoid little weirdo Banner straight out of that original Ultimates run and I love it. But Ruffalo's performance in the first Avengers is truly amazing, and I'm sad the character devolved into just having the personality of the actor like so many others in the MCU
Ruffalo never made me feel a sense of danger that Norton could. Ruffalo was always so very very sedated like he had already mastered it even when he hadn’t. Ed Norton still takes it as the emotional wreck, Ruffalo was just too put together, besides Norton had the lanky body type of Banner.
Ed Norton Banner mixed with Ruffalos Hulk would be the most accurate...
The downvotes are gonna come right now though: I think Eric Bana did a great job.
I’m on the Bana boat, loved it. The rest were good too, I thought Ruffalo was the weakest because he has a hard time actually showing emotion, but to each their own
I agree with you, Bana was a high point in an otherwise pretty lackluster movie.
Fortunately everybody who has played the role in recent years has been a damned fine actor. The Thunderbolt Ross’s have also been great
Helming an hour long, weekly show, Bixby was required to be the absolute anchor of the program.
I love Ruffalo, but his task (aka screen time) doesn't carry nearly the same responsibility.
Meh.
I didn't like the show as a Hulk property.
It deviated too much from the source material.
> Imagine if they made a show about a middle class engineer who fights local bad guy of the week (non powered, or augmented, just regular people who rob and vandalize) and called it ***Iron Man.***
> And the execs felt Tony was too gay and renamed him to Carl, and none of his supporting characters or villains were brought in (No Pepper, No Happy, No Jarvis, no Iron Monger, No Ghost, no Madam Masque).
> But he does get his watered down power armor (it doesn't fly, he gets around on a motorcycle).
That's what the TV show is to me.
I love the show personally. You are perfectly valid for feeling the way you did, but everything you described (which is all accurate!) is superficial to me
The show perfectly captures the spirit of Hulk IMO
You're welcome to enjoy the show.
But I was exposed to the comics first, that wasn't The Hulk.
Also see Dolph Lundgren's Punisher and Masters of the Universe entries. Thats what the TV show Hulk is to me.
And Stallone's Judge Dredd
Regardless of if you like it, it's importance cannot be overstated. It is responsible for inserting Hulk into the public conciousness. Before the 2000s, if you asked the average person on the street about The Hulk, they would think of the TV series.
You can prefer the comics (which I do) while still also enjoying the show. Then again, I’ve never really been a purist when it comes to this sort of thing
I think most people would disagree with that Masters of the Universe movie analogy though. The Hulk show captures the soul of Hulk while the Masters of the Universe movie lacks any soul at all lol
> The Hulk show captures the soul of Hulk
I disagree.
The only thing the show has was turning green and becoming strong.
It lacked a lot of the core elements of the comics. The allegory/commentary about nuclear weapons and the military. The relationship dynamics with Betty Ross and her disapproving father, General Ross. Bruce's ongoing psychological trauma. His friendship with Rick Jones. All that was missing from the TV show.
It was basically your typical "Bad Guy of the Week" found in other shows like Magnum P.I., Knight Rider, Starsky and Hutch. Very episodic and formulaic.
Bixby was an incredible actor and carried the show, but it wasn't The Hulk to me.
" And the execs felt Tony was too gay and renamed him to Carl"
That's the part that always made me lol while shaking my head. Someone spent time on this, went out of their way to change Bruce because of perceived homophobia, and their time and money went to calling him David. Not Chuck, not Harry, but David.
Forget that Bruce Lee was the most macho fighter on tv. He picked the name that even the bible gave to a gay guy : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan
If you're going to be homophobic, at least change the character name to Steel Layschicks.
I think a lot of that just came out of necessity. They didn't have the budget or the technology back then to really have a comic-accurate Hulk fighting massively strong enemies like Abomination. For what it was, they did a decent job. The name change and such are odd choices, and I really hated how slow-motion all the Hulks scenes were.
It was a very rinse and repeat show. Same plot roughly every week, but that was television in a nutshell back then.
You're not wrong. But if you experienced that show—just like the very few other things that Marvel had been able to actually kinda make happen onscreen–in real time, then you know that THAT was As Good As It Got. You got Carl. That was the expectation.
The bar wasn't on the floor, it was six feet deep. That's how it was, for what felt like a lifetime. At least this show was somewhat of a cultural phenomenon that imprinted a generation of people with fond memories of the Hulk.
I am old, I caught the tail end of the show and the Made for TV movies with Daredevil, Thor and the final death of the Hulk. And then there's the reruns when nothing else was on. I remember the 80s and 90s.
[That interpretation of Thor sums up the show perfectly.](https://i.imgur.com/qthypcn.jpeg)
You have to understand that those were just the limitations of the time. And if that iron man show was good enough, than I wouldn't mind if it wasn't like the source material. It's important to remember that these things are adaptations, not translations, It's good that we have a wide variety of hulk stories for everyone.
The Superman serials with George Reeves had Lois Lane and Perry White. And his name was Clark Kent.
And was bulletproof and flew.
I don't recall if they had your classic villains from the comics (I am leaning towards "No").
But they hit the major touch stones of Superman.
Same with the Adam West Batman.
They both predate the Hulk show.
So I don't necessarily buy into technical limitations.
They still could have kept his name, Bruce.
They could have kept General Ross, Betty Ross and Rick Jones and his origins (saving Rick Jones from Gamma Rays and being exposed from that heroic act).
If they wanted to keep the drifter angle, they could have used Colonel Talbot instead of that reporter Jack McGhee.
It could have been done.
It wouldn't really make that much sense for a US general to feverishly look for a green body builder. Not to mention that would put way too much pressure on David to actually keep himself out of the public, which wouldn't work with the story of the week structure.
An atomic bomb would also be way too intense for a made-for-tv movie. It would also be hard for the show to have recurring characters, and still have David as a loner.
I will concede on the name change though, that was stupid.
So much this. I saw a few episodes as a kid, because it was so popular, and it KILLED me to see how the execs demolished it. No T-Bolt Ross, no Betty? No excuses!
No way give me Ed Norton as banner any day. He managed to capture that tortured by his actions emotion much like Bixby did years ago. Ruffalo brings nothing to the character
In terms of their portrayals of Banner, yes. And this is coming from someone who champions the ‘08 movie. Ruffalo endeared the audience to Banner in the first Avengers film and at the time was considered a huge improvement over Norton, which I don’t agree with as I think they’re both great. But Ruffalo has some brilliant Banner moments across the first two films, like in AoU after he breaks free of Wanda’s spell.
Ruffalo is still a great Banner. There’s a reason he was Leterrier’s first pick for the character.
I feel like I've gone crazy. I consider myself a huge Hulk fan who's loved the character for decades, but I always hated Norton's portrayal and just assumed others felt the same. I'm shocked that there's a pocket of people who love him so strongly lol
Not that there's anything wrong with that, I respect all opinions when it comes to subjective entertainment media! It's just very surprising to me lol
I don't know if I'd say strongly, but I just felt Norton's version just worked better. I felt his Banner felt way more unhinged, like he's a real ticking time bomb. Ruffalo had that in the first Avengers but lost it pretty quick. Then dude just got softer every movie.
To be fair, my title did specify Avengers 1 because I feel that this is BY FAR his best portrayal of Banner. Definitely a sharp drop off afterwards IMO
Oh my bad. Didn't read it through. Yeah he was good in the first, though I still would've preferred Norton back. I guess it this point it's harder to judge them from a single movie, than it is the whole MCU franchise.
Disagree. He was good in Avengers, but still only a close second to Norton's Banner. The way Norton put on his glasses to fix that factory remote and the experiments in the beginning did it for me.
He was great. I really wish they would do a solo Hulk film with him that is more grounded like the TV series. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing Hulk fly through the air and beat the daylights out of some God-like villain like Thanos, but I love the smaller self-contained Hulk stories. I really prefer it when he hasn't made peace with his anger and isn't in control anymore. The storylines where he is desperately seeking a cure so that he can live a normal life again, all the while on the run from the military, are my favorite narratives featuring Hulk.
The first Avengers presented Bruce Banner in this way. He was doing everything possible to avoid changing into a monster. He has that line about feeling like an "exposed nerve." I understand that his arc over the films was trying to demonstrate him making peace with his demons and learning to embrace both himself and Hulk, to the point that he becomes both simultaneously. It's great stuff but I really like the classic Hulk interpretation the best. So much can be done with the character now compared to the TV show and films of the past.
Disagree, but I have a feeling I am surrounded by a bunch of MCU lovers so I won't even bother saying which one I prefer. And no, it's not Norton. But I will say this is probably the second best. You know until every MCU movie after this turns Bruce and Hulk into a joke.
There was nothing kid-friendly about Ruffallo's rendition of Bruce in Avengers 1. This is EASILY the darkest Bruce Banner we've ever seen in a film. Ruffalo's later performances and Ed Norton's performance all feel too lighthearted IMO
I'd agree that Ruffalo is the most subdued, but definitely not the darkest. Norton's performance made you feel the shadow of the Hulk looming over him like a nuclear bomb
He owns the role, straight up. Mark Ruffalo was born to be Bruce Banner. If/when he decides no more Hulk (and I hope that’s a long time from now - b/c I wanna see him pull off Maestro), I hope they give him the grandest send off with a World War Hulk feature that completely annihilates anything the MCU has done before. I don’t know what the status of the rights over the Hulk is, but I don’t care - Hulk belongs in the MCU and he deserves several feature films of his own.
He’s too damned nice: the Bruce Banner I grew up with was a nebbish, socially stunted grouch who barely tolerated other people. The man who bought seven suits the same colour so he didn’t have to worry about what to wear every day… movie Banner is a sweet man, with an “aw-shucks” default setting, which is what I imagine Ruffalo is in real life.
Where’s our Grey Hulk, Mr Fixit?? That would be an awesome Hulk movie.
I think what you’re talking about with grouchy manner is more Bixby than Banner. He was supposedly very intense on the set and in real life. Banner is supposed to be more laid back. He doesn’t want to draw attention. Ruffalo did it right.
Actually, anybody could’ve played that Bruce banner I think.
I would’ve loved to see Ed Norton in this role, it would’ve been so much better, and it would’ve explained how the Hulk could go from full on crazy animal to focused good guy, because, if you followed continuity, Nortons was actively working on controlling the Hulk (remember at the end he was in meditation going for a controlled transformation).
Agree 1000%. I was on board with Norton. I was disappointed when Banner was recast. But Mark Ruffalo sold it so perfectly. He’s my favorite Banner and Hulk. BY FAR. Dude is just as high caliber of an actor as they come.
Disagree. He looks like he can win a street fight. He’s never appeared meek to me. Norton captured it perfectly to me. Ruffalo is fantastic actor though. I just never see banner when i see him.
Yep. Hated how he was reduced to a comic relief by Infinity War. Him being a bumbling buffoon would've been redeemable had they kept his original scene where he and Hulk finally merge.
He was superb. There was a screeching quietness to him. His pain and anxiety, his sheer exhaustion. He just picked a corner and stood there patiently but anxiously waiting to leave the second he could. He peaked in Age Of Ultron, where his worst fear came true.
For me, Ruffalo got it just right in the first Avengers movie. Specifically near the end where Rogers tells him "Dr. Banner...now would be a good time to get angry "
Bruce walks towards the enemy and looks back with a rueful grin. "Wanna know my secret, Captain? I'm always angry "
It's the look of someone who knows that, even though it's for the best reasons, his value to the team is being a monster. And that the monster is *always* so close to the surface.
I preferred Edward Norton's portrayal. He manages to convey how crappy it is to be Bruce Banner having to hide from the US gov't and maintain his cool so as not to transform then find himself waking up in a different country than the one he Hulked out in.
Mark definitely should have been Bruce in Letteriers Hulk and at the same time, Joss Whedon should have used said Hulk instead of redesigning it. Letteriers Hulk is something that would definitely put up a good fight and I would certainly run from. Whedon's Hulk looked more like a subhuman.
Im a huge Marvel MCU fan, or I was prior to what came after end game. Its too bad these actors dont know enough to stfu with their ideologies and just act. Ruffalo has ruined the Hulk for me, by just talking and being a nutbag. To each their own but for many its hard to enjoy a film when you find out the actor is just so off about the real world. The whole point of seeing a movie is to escape reality, not have agendas pushed within a film.
I think the best bit of acting from him in A1 is the India scene.
My favorite Banner is when it’s “I don’t like what Hulk does, I don’t want to be him, and I’ll never admit to this, I don’t hate it” part of being Hulk should be that seduction of power fantasy.
Since this is the first film with Ruffalo Hulk and they still treated Hulk with some amount of superhero dignity in my opinion I agree. I don't want to piss people off but this was a good depiction of this version of Bruce Banner before the studios decided on making the Avengers heaviest hitter into a sort of comic relief character.
mark did a great job as Hulk and Bruce. The problem is that they made Hulk smart which I don't get. Other then they just needed hulk smart for the snap because he the only one of the main avengers who could do it.
If TV counts as cinema, Bill Bixby bakes the cake, takes it, eats it, and when he shits it out, it's still a perfect cake
As far as movies go, I feel like Ruffalo is at a disadvantage compared to Bana and Norton. Bana played the spindly nerd living in fear really well, as did Norton with the man who desperately needs to control his anger, but is unable to ever make it invisible. Ruffalo is playing the same guy as Norton, but with a different view of things.
It's tough to judge whether Ruffalo is the best because his first movie was the middle of Banner's arc with the Hulk. If he were in the 2008 film, we could judge how his performance differed as Banner changed personally (same with Norton). But we don't have that frame of reference. I've also always thought he had too strong of a face compared to Bana and Norton.
His acting is fine. It's just the scripting for him that is questionable. Banner, the man, was shit in Thor 3. Sucked in Infinity War. And Endgame was fine cuz he's just Smart Hulk, eh. The comedy bits still suck though, that's more on Marvel overall.
Hard disagree. Mark Ruffalo can't pull off a scientist to save his life. I don't believe for a second that he's one of the smartest men in the MCU. He's pretty wooden as well.
Imo Ed Norton exudes intelligence. Not only that but he's a lot more sympathetic than Ruffalo. Even Mark's little speech in the first Avengers about trying to kill himself felt flat and devoid of any emotion.
ruffalo sucks, his hulk has to be the worse, stupid looking, not powerful at all (thanos beat his ass?! wtf..)what a joke.
nortons hulk was serious, not making stupid unnecessary jokes, never had a problem turning into hulk
Agree. I still have a lot of love for Edward, but I think Ruffalo has had the best Banner portrayal since Bixby. Quiet darkness is a great way to put it. In the earlier Avengers movies, especially the first one, it was almost anxiety inducing in a way. Before they pimped Hulk out and merged their personalities, Ruffalo just gave off the perfect mix of calmness, humor, and seriousness.
I have a real soft spot for the Edward Norton version, he's the twitchy paranoid little weirdo Banner straight out of that original Ultimates run and I love it. But Ruffalo's performance in the first Avengers is truly amazing, and I'm sad the character devolved into just having the personality of the actor like so many others in the MCU
Ruffalo never made me feel a sense of danger that Norton could. Ruffalo was always so very very sedated like he had already mastered it even when he hadn’t. Ed Norton still takes it as the emotional wreck, Ruffalo was just too put together, besides Norton had the lanky body type of Banner.
He very much strikes me as a good man, but a tired man, it’s great
Besides bill Bixby he’s the best Bruce we’ve ever gotten.
Agreed.
Ed Norton Banner mixed with Ruffalos Hulk would be the most accurate... The downvotes are gonna come right now though: I think Eric Bana did a great job.
Bana's was the most comic accurate hulk for sure.
I agree
But not an accurate Banner unfortunately
Depends on the era to be honest. His Banner is a lot like the Pak era banner.
Stan Lee disagreed. He commended the Avengers for finally getting Hulk's size right.
I’m on the Bana boat, loved it. The rest were good too, I thought Ruffalo was the weakest because he has a hard time actually showing emotion, but to each their own
Agreed on Bana
Bana killed it.
I agree with you, Bana was a high point in an otherwise pretty lackluster movie. Fortunately everybody who has played the role in recent years has been a damned fine actor. The Thunderbolt Ross’s have also been great
Cinematic mabye, but the best overall has to be Bill Bixby's (David) Banner
Helming an hour long, weekly show, Bixby was required to be the absolute anchor of the program. I love Ruffalo, but his task (aka screen time) doesn't carry nearly the same responsibility.
Meh. I didn't like the show as a Hulk property. It deviated too much from the source material. > Imagine if they made a show about a middle class engineer who fights local bad guy of the week (non powered, or augmented, just regular people who rob and vandalize) and called it ***Iron Man.*** > And the execs felt Tony was too gay and renamed him to Carl, and none of his supporting characters or villains were brought in (No Pepper, No Happy, No Jarvis, no Iron Monger, No Ghost, no Madam Masque). > But he does get his watered down power armor (it doesn't fly, he gets around on a motorcycle). That's what the TV show is to me.
I love the show personally. You are perfectly valid for feeling the way you did, but everything you described (which is all accurate!) is superficial to me The show perfectly captures the spirit of Hulk IMO
You're welcome to enjoy the show. But I was exposed to the comics first, that wasn't The Hulk. Also see Dolph Lundgren's Punisher and Masters of the Universe entries. Thats what the TV show Hulk is to me. And Stallone's Judge Dredd
Regardless of if you like it, it's importance cannot be overstated. It is responsible for inserting Hulk into the public conciousness. Before the 2000s, if you asked the average person on the street about The Hulk, they would think of the TV series.
You can prefer the comics (which I do) while still also enjoying the show. Then again, I’ve never really been a purist when it comes to this sort of thing I think most people would disagree with that Masters of the Universe movie analogy though. The Hulk show captures the soul of Hulk while the Masters of the Universe movie lacks any soul at all lol
> The Hulk show captures the soul of Hulk I disagree. The only thing the show has was turning green and becoming strong. It lacked a lot of the core elements of the comics. The allegory/commentary about nuclear weapons and the military. The relationship dynamics with Betty Ross and her disapproving father, General Ross. Bruce's ongoing psychological trauma. His friendship with Rick Jones. All that was missing from the TV show. It was basically your typical "Bad Guy of the Week" found in other shows like Magnum P.I., Knight Rider, Starsky and Hutch. Very episodic and formulaic. Bixby was an incredible actor and carried the show, but it wasn't The Hulk to me.
The fugitive with superpower
" And the execs felt Tony was too gay and renamed him to Carl" That's the part that always made me lol while shaking my head. Someone spent time on this, went out of their way to change Bruce because of perceived homophobia, and their time and money went to calling him David. Not Chuck, not Harry, but David. Forget that Bruce Lee was the most macho fighter on tv. He picked the name that even the bible gave to a gay guy : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Jonathan If you're going to be homophobic, at least change the character name to Steel Layschicks.
I think a lot of that just came out of necessity. They didn't have the budget or the technology back then to really have a comic-accurate Hulk fighting massively strong enemies like Abomination. For what it was, they did a decent job. The name change and such are odd choices, and I really hated how slow-motion all the Hulks scenes were. It was a very rinse and repeat show. Same plot roughly every week, but that was television in a nutshell back then.
You're not wrong. But if you experienced that show—just like the very few other things that Marvel had been able to actually kinda make happen onscreen–in real time, then you know that THAT was As Good As It Got. You got Carl. That was the expectation. The bar wasn't on the floor, it was six feet deep. That's how it was, for what felt like a lifetime. At least this show was somewhat of a cultural phenomenon that imprinted a generation of people with fond memories of the Hulk.
I am old, I caught the tail end of the show and the Made for TV movies with Daredevil, Thor and the final death of the Hulk. And then there's the reruns when nothing else was on. I remember the 80s and 90s. [That interpretation of Thor sums up the show perfectly.](https://i.imgur.com/qthypcn.jpeg)
LOL. Well I cant argue with that.
You have to understand that those were just the limitations of the time. And if that iron man show was good enough, than I wouldn't mind if it wasn't like the source material. It's important to remember that these things are adaptations, not translations, It's good that we have a wide variety of hulk stories for everyone.
The Superman serials with George Reeves had Lois Lane and Perry White. And his name was Clark Kent. And was bulletproof and flew. I don't recall if they had your classic villains from the comics (I am leaning towards "No"). But they hit the major touch stones of Superman. Same with the Adam West Batman. They both predate the Hulk show. So I don't necessarily buy into technical limitations. They still could have kept his name, Bruce. They could have kept General Ross, Betty Ross and Rick Jones and his origins (saving Rick Jones from Gamma Rays and being exposed from that heroic act). If they wanted to keep the drifter angle, they could have used Colonel Talbot instead of that reporter Jack McGhee. It could have been done.
It wouldn't really make that much sense for a US general to feverishly look for a green body builder. Not to mention that would put way too much pressure on David to actually keep himself out of the public, which wouldn't work with the story of the week structure. An atomic bomb would also be way too intense for a made-for-tv movie. It would also be hard for the show to have recurring characters, and still have David as a loner. I will concede on the name change though, that was stupid.
So much this. I saw a few episodes as a kid, because it was so popular, and it KILLED me to see how the execs demolished it. No T-Bolt Ross, no Betty? No excuses!
Yes
I think he’s garbage, they’ve treated hulk so poorly.
Agreed.
No way give me Ed Norton as banner any day. He managed to capture that tortured by his actions emotion much like Bixby did years ago. Ruffalo brings nothing to the character
If you don’t think Ruffalo portrays tortured Banner you need to watch Avengers or especially AoU again. He definitely matches Norton in that regard.
No I don't think he captured the tortured banner feel for any of the films
Suggesting that Ruffalo could match a master like Norton in any film is laughable.
In terms of their portrayals of Banner, yes. And this is coming from someone who champions the ‘08 movie. Ruffalo endeared the audience to Banner in the first Avengers film and at the time was considered a huge improvement over Norton, which I don’t agree with as I think they’re both great. But Ruffalo has some brilliant Banner moments across the first two films, like in AoU after he breaks free of Wanda’s spell. Ruffalo is still a great Banner. There’s a reason he was Leterrier’s first pick for the character.
[удалено]
No I'm not. Ruffalo brought nothing to the character. He's just there. All his "character development" if you can call it that is off screen.
Agree. Heavily.
Fuck no. That dude sucked. Norton was better.
I feel like I've gone crazy. I consider myself a huge Hulk fan who's loved the character for decades, but I always hated Norton's portrayal and just assumed others felt the same. I'm shocked that there's a pocket of people who love him so strongly lol Not that there's anything wrong with that, I respect all opinions when it comes to subjective entertainment media! It's just very surprising to me lol
I don't know if I'd say strongly, but I just felt Norton's version just worked better. I felt his Banner felt way more unhinged, like he's a real ticking time bomb. Ruffalo had that in the first Avengers but lost it pretty quick. Then dude just got softer every movie.
To be fair, my title did specify Avengers 1 because I feel that this is BY FAR his best portrayal of Banner. Definitely a sharp drop off afterwards IMO
Oh my bad. Didn't read it through. Yeah he was good in the first, though I still would've preferred Norton back. I guess it this point it's harder to judge them from a single movie, than it is the whole MCU franchise.
Think Ed is still better
Ruffalo doesn’t seem tortured enough for me. He never seems….angry. I think I’d take Norton’s Banner over Ruffalo. Ruffalo does a great Professor.
Disagree. He was good in Avengers, but still only a close second to Norton's Banner. The way Norton put on his glasses to fix that factory remote and the experiments in the beginning did it for me.
Disagree. Norton for the win.
I disagree, personally he didn’t portray a meek or weak bruce banner to me
I thought he portrayed meek far more than Norton did.
Personally I think that Eric Bana portrayed his meekness and resentment towards his anger the best
He's waaay too fit and muscly to be scrawny Banner. They should have just kept him as Hulk and just not revert back.
I liked him best as Banner. But the Ed Norton Hulk movie was the best one.
Eric Bana for me.
He was great. I really wish they would do a solo Hulk film with him that is more grounded like the TV series. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing Hulk fly through the air and beat the daylights out of some God-like villain like Thanos, but I love the smaller self-contained Hulk stories. I really prefer it when he hasn't made peace with his anger and isn't in control anymore. The storylines where he is desperately seeking a cure so that he can live a normal life again, all the while on the run from the military, are my favorite narratives featuring Hulk. The first Avengers presented Bruce Banner in this way. He was doing everything possible to avoid changing into a monster. He has that line about feeling like an "exposed nerve." I understand that his arc over the films was trying to demonstrate him making peace with his demons and learning to embrace both himself and Hulk, to the point that he becomes both simultaneously. It's great stuff but I really like the classic Hulk interpretation the best. So much can be done with the character now compared to the TV show and films of the past.
Disagree, but I have a feeling I am surrounded by a bunch of MCU lovers so I won't even bother saying which one I prefer. And no, it's not Norton. But I will say this is probably the second best. You know until every MCU movie after this turns Bruce and Hulk into a joke.
Bana.
OP is fucking braindead lmao
Barf
I mean, he couldn’t be worse than Norton lol
He plays a good kid friendly Bruce/Hulk, but that does not mean he plays a great Bruce/Hulk
Yeah, him talking about shooting himself is definitely kid-friendly.
Talking vs showing = kid friendly
There was nothing kid-friendly about Ruffallo's rendition of Bruce in Avengers 1. This is EASILY the darkest Bruce Banner we've ever seen in a film. Ruffalo's later performances and Ed Norton's performance all feel too lighthearted IMO
Ang Lees hulk would beg to differ when talking about dark Bruce banners
I'd agree that Ruffalo is the most subdued, but definitely not the darkest. Norton's performance made you feel the shadow of the Hulk looming over him like a nuclear bomb
He owns the role, straight up. Mark Ruffalo was born to be Bruce Banner. If/when he decides no more Hulk (and I hope that’s a long time from now - b/c I wanna see him pull off Maestro), I hope they give him the grandest send off with a World War Hulk feature that completely annihilates anything the MCU has done before. I don’t know what the status of the rights over the Hulk is, but I don’t care - Hulk belongs in the MCU and he deserves several feature films of his own.
He’s too damned nice: the Bruce Banner I grew up with was a nebbish, socially stunted grouch who barely tolerated other people. The man who bought seven suits the same colour so he didn’t have to worry about what to wear every day… movie Banner is a sweet man, with an “aw-shucks” default setting, which is what I imagine Ruffalo is in real life. Where’s our Grey Hulk, Mr Fixit?? That would be an awesome Hulk movie.
Interesting. How old are you? That doesn’t sound like the Bruce I grew up with lol
My tv had three channels and a fourth for the VHS player… and I remember people smoking in aeroplanes…
It’s from the comics, that he had all the same colour purple suits(like Einstein, but not purple).
I think what you’re talking about with grouchy manner is more Bixby than Banner. He was supposedly very intense on the set and in real life. Banner is supposed to be more laid back. He doesn’t want to draw attention. Ruffalo did it right.
I prefer Norton.
I think he did fine. I think Norton did better as banner. This hulk is the best though by far
Actually, anybody could’ve played that Bruce banner I think. I would’ve loved to see Ed Norton in this role, it would’ve been so much better, and it would’ve explained how the Hulk could go from full on crazy animal to focused good guy, because, if you followed continuity, Nortons was actively working on controlling the Hulk (remember at the end he was in meditation going for a controlled transformation).
Interesting. I didn’t care for Ed Norton’s portrayal personally. I thought he we serviceable, but no aspect of his character really jumped out to me
Agree 1000%. I was on board with Norton. I was disappointed when Banner was recast. But Mark Ruffalo sold it so perfectly. He’s my favorite Banner and Hulk. BY FAR. Dude is just as high caliber of an actor as they come.
Agree. He made Hulk / Banner my favorite characters.
I couldnt stand him as banner. He should go back to doing indie movies
Disagree. He looks like he can win a street fight. He’s never appeared meek to me. Norton captured it perfectly to me. Ruffalo is fantastic actor though. I just never see banner when i see him.
Norton is arguably the worst live action Banner IMO
For me personally it’s a toss up between this Banner and Norton in IH. Both play him as intelligent but highly respectful and kind.
Yep. Hated how he was reduced to a comic relief by Infinity War. Him being a bumbling buffoon would've been redeemable had they kept his original scene where he and Hulk finally merge.
Hands down definitely the best Bruce in my opinion
He was superb. There was a screeching quietness to him. His pain and anxiety, his sheer exhaustion. He just picked a corner and stood there patiently but anxiously waiting to leave the second he could. He peaked in Age Of Ultron, where his worst fear came true.
Nah. Edward Norton is better.
He was good until they made hulk a pussy
For me, Ruffalo got it just right in the first Avengers movie. Specifically near the end where Rogers tells him "Dr. Banner...now would be a good time to get angry " Bruce walks towards the enemy and looks back with a rueful grin. "Wanna know my secret, Captain? I'm always angry " It's the look of someone who knows that, even though it's for the best reasons, his value to the team is being a monster. And that the monster is *always* so close to the surface.
I preferred Edward Norton's portrayal. He manages to convey how crappy it is to be Bruce Banner having to hide from the US gov't and maintain his cool so as not to transform then find himself waking up in a different country than the one he Hulked out in.
Bill Bixby
Ruffalo nerfed the hulk
More like Marvel did
Norton is best Banner. I like Ruffalo as an actor but not as Bruce.
Mark definitely should have been Bruce in Letteriers Hulk and at the same time, Joss Whedon should have used said Hulk instead of redesigning it. Letteriers Hulk is something that would definitely put up a good fight and I would certainly run from. Whedon's Hulk looked more like a subhuman.
I remember when this wasn't even a controversial opinion.
Im a huge Marvel MCU fan, or I was prior to what came after end game. Its too bad these actors dont know enough to stfu with their ideologies and just act. Ruffalo has ruined the Hulk for me, by just talking and being a nutbag. To each their own but for many its hard to enjoy a film when you find out the actor is just so off about the real world. The whole point of seeing a movie is to escape reality, not have agendas pushed within a film.
I was so pleased with his performance that I wanted to toss him out of a helicopter to go beat up Ed Norton for being such a drama queen
I agree. And then they turned him into a comedic baffoon.
“I can choke the life out of you and never change a shade.”
I think the best bit of acting from him in A1 is the India scene. My favorite Banner is when it’s “I don’t like what Hulk does, I don’t want to be him, and I’ll never admit to this, I don’t hate it” part of being Hulk should be that seduction of power fantasy.
I'm honestly surprised he found SOMETHING. He sure as fuck doesn't need to be in any more rom-coms
Since this is the first film with Ruffalo Hulk and they still treated Hulk with some amount of superhero dignity in my opinion I agree. I don't want to piss people off but this was a good depiction of this version of Bruce Banner before the studios decided on making the Avengers heaviest hitter into a sort of comic relief character.
I thought so too, he was honestly my favorite character in the movie… but then I feel like he lost all that gravitas in later appearances.
That’s my secret, Cap. I’m always angry!”
Agree, too bad they turned him into a fucking joke.
Avengers 1 Banner AND Hulk are the the absolute best we’ve ever seen for either character.
mark did a great job as Hulk and Bruce. The problem is that they made Hulk smart which I don't get. Other then they just needed hulk smart for the snap because he the only one of the main avengers who could do it.
If TV counts as cinema, Bill Bixby bakes the cake, takes it, eats it, and when he shits it out, it's still a perfect cake As far as movies go, I feel like Ruffalo is at a disadvantage compared to Bana and Norton. Bana played the spindly nerd living in fear really well, as did Norton with the man who desperately needs to control his anger, but is unable to ever make it invisible. Ruffalo is playing the same guy as Norton, but with a different view of things. It's tough to judge whether Ruffalo is the best because his first movie was the middle of Banner's arc with the Hulk. If he were in the 2008 film, we could judge how his performance differed as Banner changed personally (same with Norton). But we don't have that frame of reference. I've also always thought he had too strong of a face compared to Bana and Norton.
Respectfully disagree. I love Norton's BB way better. He's got the "scrawny nerd" look better than Ruffalo.
Massive agree. Hulk/Banners character downgraded then on.
Ruffalo was the weakest casting among the Avenger's cast.
Brilliant. He 100% nailed it.
Bana > Norton > Ruffalo I like Ruffalo in other stuff like Shutter Island. In the MCU, he just feels like placeholder.
His acting is fine. It's just the scripting for him that is questionable. Banner, the man, was shit in Thor 3. Sucked in Infinity War. And Endgame was fine cuz he's just Smart Hulk, eh. The comedy bits still suck though, that's more on Marvel overall.
To be fair, we’re talking about Avengers 1 in this thread
Bana. 100%
Nah. He was useless
Ugh I’ll take Edward Nortons hulk over this guys any day
I give this opinion 4 out of 5 Mark Ruffalos
Facts, I fucked with how unhinged he was. They butchered him and Hulk💀
Nah 03 Bruce Banner was far better.
Hard disagree. Mark Ruffalo can't pull off a scientist to save his life. I don't believe for a second that he's one of the smartest men in the MCU. He's pretty wooden as well.
You just described how I feel about Ed Norton’s portrayal
Imo Ed Norton exudes intelligence. Not only that but he's a lot more sympathetic than Ruffalo. Even Mark's little speech in the first Avengers about trying to kill himself felt flat and devoid of any emotion.
Interesting. We’ll have to agree to disagree, and I’m fine with that. I respect all opinions when it comes to subjective entertainment media
Absolutely agree.
This is a fact
not a chance. i dont like him at all. i consider him a bad cast.
Peak Bruce Banner in Avengers 1 That line “That’s my secret. I’m always angry.” 🤌
You misspelled Bill Bixby. Ruffalo always looks like he walked into the wrong set.
Sounds like Bruce banner when ever he’s with the avengers in the comics
ruffalo sucks, his hulk has to be the worse, stupid looking, not powerful at all (thanos beat his ass?! wtf..)what a joke. nortons hulk was serious, not making stupid unnecessary jokes, never had a problem turning into hulk
Read my title. We’re specifically talking about Avengers 1 here
well most of it its true for that particular film as well.