Marvelous future for Marvel Studios

The Hulk has been a problem child on the big-screen. The 2003 version, which starred Eric Bana as scientist Bruce Banner and featured a cartoonish Hulk hopping around in the desert, opened with a whopping $62.1 million weekend, then a record for June debuts.

But word of mouth was bad, and the audience quickly dried up, leaving one of Marvel’s standard-bearers in Hollywood limbo.

“It was a noble experiment, I think, that first film, but I, like much of the audience, left wanting a lot more than what we got,” said Kevin Feige, Marvel Studios’ president of production.

The new movie is more action-oriented, clocking in at well under two hours, nearly 30 minutes shorter than Lee’s dark, ponderous version.

As with “Iron Man,” Marvel cast an acclaimed actor, Edward Norton, as Banner, the guy who turns into a not-so-jolly green giant when angry. The story emulates the TV show, with Banner a fugitive, and it gives him real villains to battle, including Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky, a soldier transformed into the Hulk’s huge nemesis, the Abomination.

Roth did not see Lee’s “Hulk” but said he expects the new movie will satisfy fans looking for spectacle.

“Our thing opens with a big action sequence. That’s probably going to set the tone with the audience,” Roth said.

While Norton took an active role in reshaping the story and rewriting the screenplay, the notoriously finicky actor almost became a liability after word leaked out that he, director Louis Leterrier and Marvel executives disagreed over the final cut of the movie.

Norton, who typically does little press, declined an interview for this story. The filmmakers downplayed any differences, saying the usual discussions that take place as movies near the finish line were blown out of proportion.

“It was just somebody, somewhere, somehow heard we were arguing, but we were not arguing,” Leterrier said. “We were having a meeting, and maybe somebody walked in and heard Edward saying, ‘I really want this scene back in.’ But there was no argument.”

There is no argument that Marvel’s move to finance its own movies has paid off, at least so far. A month after “Iron Man” opened, Marvel Entertainment’s stock was trading at an all-time high of about $36 a share.

Analysts take a wait-and-see attitude about whether the strategy will work over the long haul. While Marvel plans to make two movies a year, there is a two-year lag before its next releases, “Iron Man 2” and “Thor.”

“That’s a big hiccup, to have no movies next year,” analyst Hickey said. “They did a phenomenal job with ‘Iron Man.’ I think the jury’s still out, but the initial read is positive.”

The Marvel logo will be in front of audiences with next year’s “Wolverine” from Fox and this fall’s vigilante thriller “Punisher: War Zone” from Lionsgate, which retains the rights to that Marvel franchise.

A clear benefit Marvel has gained by making its own movies is creative control. Comic-book fans are perpetually wary that Hollywood will mess up their favorite characters. With Marvel calling the shots, fans can rest a little easier that the movies will remain true to their origins.

MORE FROM MORE NEWS AND OTHER FEATURES

Risk-taking Almodovar still has some modesty

Risk-taking Almodovar still has some modesty Will Ferrell is Hollywood's most overpaid star Cage uncuffs inner cop for ‘Bad Lieutenant’ Viacom wins rights to Jackson’s ‘This Is It’ 15 documentary features make Oscar’s short list Hollywood rethinks use of pricey A-list actors ‘Mormon Proposition’ looks at Prop. 8 debate Bacall, Corman receive early Oscars End is near as Hollywood does the apocalypse 10 failed doomsday predictions   Add More news and other features headlines to your news reader: