document_title: Roe v. Wade

question_text: when was the last time roe v wade was challenged

question_tokens: when was the last time roe v wade was challenged

text: Roe v. Wade

text: Background

text: History of abortion laws in the United States

text: According to the Court, "the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage." Providing a historical analysis on abortion, Justice Harry Blackmun noted that abortion was "resorted to without scruple" in Greek and Roman times.[9] Blackmun also addressed the permissive and restrictive abortion attitudes and laws throughout history, noting the disagreements among leaders (of all different professions) in those eras and the formative laws and cases.[10] In the United States, in 1821, Connecticut passed the first state statute criminalizing abortion. Every state had abortion legislation by 1900.[11] In the United States, abortion was sometimes considered a common law crime,[12] though Justice Blackmun would conclude that the criminalization of abortion did not have "roots in the English common-law tradition."[13] Rather than arresting the women having the abortions, legal officials were more likely to interrogate these women to obtain evidence against the abortion provider in order to close down that provider's business.[14][15]

tag: p

text: History of the case

text: In June 1969, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. She returned to Dallas, Texas, where friends advised her to assert falsely that she had been raped in order to obtain a legal abortion (with the understanding that Texas law allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest). However, this scheme failed because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. In any case, the Texas statute allowed abortion only ”for the purpose of saving the life of the mother”. She attempted to obtain an Illegal abortion, but found that the unauthorized facility had been closed down by the police. Eventually, she was referred to attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington.[16][17] (McCorvey would end up giving birth before the case was decided, and the child was put up for adoption.)[18]

text: In 1970, Coffee and Weddington filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of McCorvey (under the alias Jane Roe). The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, who represented the State of Texas. McCorvey was no longer claiming her pregnancy was a result of rape, and later acknowledged that she had lied about having been raped.[19][20] "Rape" is not mentioned in the judicial opinions in the case.[21]

text: On June 17, 1970, a three-judge panel of the District Court, consisting of Northern District of Texas Judges Sarah T. Hughes, William McLaughlin Taylor Jr. and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Irving Loeb Goldberg, unanimously[21] declared the Texas law unconstitutional, finding that it violated the right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment. In addition, the court relied on Justice Arthur Goldberg's 1965 concurrence in Griswold v. Connecticut. The court, however, declined to grant an injunction against enforcement of the law.[22]

text: In 1971, Shirley Wheeler was charged with manslaughter after Florida hospital staff reported her illegal abortion to the police. She received a sentence of two years' probation and, under her probation, had to move back into her parents' house in North Carolina.[23] The Boston Women's Abortion Coalition held a rally for Wheeler in Boston to raise money and awareness of her charges as well as had staff members from the Women's National Abortion Action Coalition (WONAAC) speak at the rally.[24] Wheeler was possibly the first woman to be held criminally responsible for submitting to an abortion.[25] Her conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court.[14]

text: Before the Supreme Court

text: Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court on appeal in 1970. The justices delayed taking action on Roe and a closely related case, Doe v. Bolton, until they had decided Younger v. Harris (because they felt the appeals raised difficult questions on judicial jurisdiction) and United States v. Vuitch (in which they considered the constitutionality of a District of Columbia statute that criminalized abortion except where the mother's life or health was endangered). In Vuitch, the Court narrowly upheld the statute, though in doing so, it treated abortion as a medical procedure and stated that physicians must be given room to determine what constitutes a danger to (physical or mental) health. The day after they announced their decision in Vuitch, they voted to hear both Roe and Doe.[26]

text: Arguments were scheduled by the full Court for December 13, 1971. Before the Court could hear the oral arguments, Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II retired. Chief Justice Warren Burger asked Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Blackmun to determine whether Roe and Doe, among others, should be heard as scheduled. According to Blackmun, Stewart felt that the cases were a straightforward application of Younger v. Harris, and they recommended that the Court move forward as scheduled.[27]

text: In his opening argument in defense of the abortion restrictions, attorney Jay Floyd made what was later described as the "worst joke in legal history."[28] Appearing against two female lawyers, Floyd began, "Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word." His remark was met with cold silence; one observer thought that Chief Justice Burger "was going to come right off the bench at him. He glared him down."[29][30]

text: After a first round of arguments, all seven justices tentatively agreed that the Texas law should be struck down, but on varying grounds.[31] Burger assigned the role of writing the Court's opinion in Roe (as well as Doe) to Blackmun, who began drafting a preliminary opinion that emphasized what he saw as the Texas law's vagueness.[32] (At this point, Black and Harlan had been replaced by Justices William Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., but they arrived too late to hear the first round of arguments.) But Blackmun felt that his opinion did not adequately reflect his liberal colleagues' views.[33] In May 1972, he proposed that the case be reargued. Justice William O. Douglas threatened to write a dissent from the reargument order (he and the other liberal justices were suspicious that Rehnquist and Powell would vote to uphold the statute), but was coaxed out of the action by his colleagues, and his dissent was merely mentioned in the reargument order without further statement or opinion.[34][35] The case was reargued on October 11, 1972. Weddington continued to represent Roe, and Texas Assistant Attorney General Robert C. Flowers replaced Jay Floyd for Texas.[citation needed]

text: Blackmun continued to work on his opinions in both cases over the summer recess, even though there was no guarantee that he would be assigned to write them again. Over the recess, he spent a week researching the history of abortion at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, where he had worked in the 1950s. After the Court heard the second round of arguments, Powell said he would agree with Blackmun's conclusion but pushed for Roe to be the lead of the two abortion cases being considered. Powell also suggested that the Court strike down the Texas law on privacy grounds. Justice Byron White was unwilling to sign on to Blackmun's opinion, and Rehnquist had already decided to dissent.[36]

text: Supreme Court decision

text: The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. Justices Burger, Douglas, and Stewart filed concurring opinions, and Justice White filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Rehnquist joined. Burger's, Douglas's, and White's opinions were issued along with the Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton (announced on the same day as Roe v. Wade). The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny.[37]

text: Right to privacy

text: The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[38] Douglas, in his concurring opinion in the companion case, Doe, stated more emphatically, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."[39]

text: Justice Blackmun's majority opinion explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[40][41] The Court instead recognized the right to an abortion as a fundamental right included within the guarantee of personal privacy.[42] As a result, regulations limiting abortion had to be justified by a "compelling state interest," and legislative enactments regulating abortion had to be narrowly tailored to meet the compelling interests; in other words, Justice Blackmun applied a strict scrutiny analysis to abortion regulations.[43]

text: While acknowledging that the right to abortion was not unlimited, Justice Blackmun, speaking for the Court, created a trimester framework to balance the fundamental right to abortion with the government's two legitimate interests: protecting the mother's health and protecting the "potentiality of human life." The trimester framework addressed when a woman's fundamental right to abortion would be absolute, and when the state's interests would become compelling. In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician.[44] From approximately the end of the first trimester until fetal viability, the state's interest in protecting the health of the mother would become "compelling."[45] At that time, the state could regulate the abortion procedure if the regulation "reasonably relate[d] to the "preservation and protection of maternal health."[45] At the point of viability, which the Court believed to be in the third trimester, the state's interest in "potential life" would become compelling, and the state could regulate abortion to protect "potential life."[45] At that point, the state could even forbid abortion so long as it made an exception to preserve the life or health of the mother.[46] The Court added that the primary right being preserved in the Roe decision was that of the physician to practice medicine freely absent a compelling state interest – not women's rights in general.[47] In 1992, however, the plurality of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy made a subtle move away from the physician's-rights approach of Roe and toward a patient's-rights approach in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. The plurality in Casey, explicitly confirming that women had a constitutional right to abortion and further upholding the "essential holding" of Roe, stated that women had a right to choose abortion before viability and that this right could not be unduly interfered with by the state.[48] They asserted that this right was rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[48]

text: Prior to the decision, the justices discussed the trimester framework at great length. Justice Powell had suggested that the point where the state could intervene be placed at viability, which Justice Thurgood Marshall supported as well.[49] In an internal memo to the other justices before the majority decision was published, Justice Blackmun wrote: "You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary."[50] Roe supporters are quick to point out, however, that the memo only reflects Blackmun's uncertainty about the timing of the trimester framework, not the framework or the holding itself.[51] In his opinion, Blackmun also clearly explained how he had reached the trimester framework – scrutinizing history, common law, the Hippocratic Oath, medical knowledge, and the positions of medical organizations.[52] Justice Blackmun's trimester framework was later rejected by the O'Connor–Souter–Kennedy plurality in Casey, in favor of the "undue burden" analysis still employed by the Court.[53] Contrary to Blackmun, Justice Douglas preferred the first-trimester line.[54] Justice Stewart said the lines were "legislative" and wanted more flexibility and consideration paid to state legislatures, though he joined Blackmun's decision.[55] Justice William J. Brennan Jr. proposed abandoning frameworks based on the age of the fetus and instead allowing states to regulate the procedure based on its safety for the mother.[54]

text: The majority opinion allowed states to protect fetal life after viability even though a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.[56]

text: Justiciability

text: An aspect of the decision that attracted comparatively little attention was the Court's disposition of the issues of standing and mootness. Under the traditional interpretation of these rules, Jane Roe's appeal was "moot" because she had already given birth to her child and thus would not be affected by the ruling; she also lacked "standing" to assert the rights of other pregnant women.[57] As she did not present an "actual case or controversy" (a grievance and a demand for relief), any opinion issued by the Supreme Court would constitute an advisory opinion.

text: The Court concluded that the case came within an established exception to the rule: one that allowed consideration of an issue that was "capable of repetition, yet evading review."[58] This phrase had been coined in 1911 by Justice Joseph McKenna in Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC.[59] Blackmun's opinion quoted McKenna and noted that pregnancy would normally conclude more quickly than an appellate process: "If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied."[60]

text: Dissents

text: Justices White and Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions. White wrote:

text: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[61][62]

text: White asserted that the Court "values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." Though he suggested that he "might agree" with the Court's values and priorities, he wrote that he saw "no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States." White criticized the Court for involving itself in the issue of abortion by creating "a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it." He would have left this issue, for the most part, "with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."

text: Rehnquist elaborated on several of White's points, asserting that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:

text: To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[63][64][65]

text: From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

text: Reception

text: Political

text:
A  statistical evaluation of the relationship of political affiliation to pro-choice and anti-abortion issues shows that public opinion is much more nuanced about when abortion is acceptable than is commonly assumed.[66]
The most prominent organized groups that mobilized in response to Roe are the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right to Life Committee.

text: Support

text: Advocates of Roe describe it as vital to the preservation of women's rights, personal freedom, bodily integrity, and privacy. Advocates have also reasoned that access to safe abortion and reproductive freedom generally are fundamental rights. Some scholars (not including any member of the Supreme Court) have equated the denial of abortion rights to compulsory motherhood, and have argued that abortion bans therefore violate the Thirteenth Amendment:

text: When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to 'involuntary servitude' in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment….[E]ven if the woman has stipulated to have consented to the risk of pregnancy, that does not permit the state to force her to remain pregnant.[67]

text: Supporters of Roe contend that the decision has a valid constitutional foundation in the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the fundamental right to abortion is found elsewhere in the Constitution but not in the articles referenced in the decision.[67][68]

text: Opposition

text: Every year, on the anniversary of the decision, opponents of abortion march up Constitution Avenue to the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., in the March for Life.[69]  Around 250,000 people attended the march until 2010.[70][71] Estimates put the 2011 and 2012 attendances at 400,000 each,[72] and the 2013 March for Life drew an estimated 650,000 people.[73]

text: Opponents of Roe assert that the decision lacks a valid constitutional foundation.[74] Like the dissenters in Roe, they maintain that the Constitution is silent on the issue, and that proper solutions to the question would best be found via state legislatures and the legislative process, rather than through an all-encompassing ruling from the Supreme Court.[75]

text: A prominent argument against the Roe decision is that, in the absence of consensus about when meaningful life begins, it is best to avoid the risk of doing harm.[76]

text: In response to Roe v. Wade, most states enacted or attempted to enact laws limiting or regulating abortion, such as laws requiring parental consent or parental notification for minors to obtain abortions; spousal mutual consent laws; spousal notification laws; laws requiring abortions to be performed in hospitals, not clinics; laws barring state funding for abortions; laws banning intact dilation and extraction, also known as partial-birth abortion; laws requiring waiting periods before abortions; and laws mandating that women read certain types of literature and watch a fetal ultrasound before undergoing an abortion.[77] In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, barring federal funding of abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the mother) for poor women through the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court struck down some state restrictions in a long series of cases stretching from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, but upheld restrictions on funding, including the Hyde Amendment, in the case of Harris v. McRae (1980).[78]

text: Some opponents of abortion maintain that personhood begins at fertilization or conception, and should therefore be protected by the Constitution;[68] the dissenting justices in Roe instead wrote that decisions about abortion "should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."[61]

text: Perhaps the most notable opposition to Roe comes from Roe herself: In 1995, Norma L. McCorvey revealed that she had become pro-life, and from then until her death in 2017, she was a vocal opponent of abortion.[79]

text: Legal

text:
Justice Blackmun, who authored the Roe decision, stood by the analytical framework he established in Roe throughout his career.[80]  Despite his initial reluctance, he became the decision's chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court.[81]
Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way.[82] Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.[83]

text: Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, "it might have been much more acceptable" from a legal standpoint.[84] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for ending a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation.[85] Ginsburg has also faulted the Court's approach for being "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered."[86] Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."[87]

text: In a highly cited 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal,[88] Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision that "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."[89] Ely added: "What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure." Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."[90] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[91] Cass Sunstein,[92] and Kermit Roosevelt[93] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.

text: Jeffrey Rosen[94] and Michael Kinsley[95] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote, "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."[96] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."[97] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather," wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."[98]

text: The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling.[99] The "viability" criterion is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.[100]

text: Public opinion

text: A Gallup poll conducted in May 2014 indicates that 50% of Americans believe that abortions should be legal under certain circumstances, 28% believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and 21% believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances.[101]

text: A Gallup poll conducted in May 2009 indicates that 53% of Americans believe that abortions should be legal under certain circumstances, 23% believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and 22% believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. However, in this poll, more Americans referred to themselves as "Pro-Life" than "Pro-Choice" for the first time since the poll asked the question in 1995, with 51% identifying as "Pro-Life" and 42% identifying as "Pro-Choice".[102] Similarly, an April 2009 Pew Research Center poll showed a softening of support for legal abortion in all cases compared to the previous years of polling. People who said they support abortion in all or most cases dropped from 54% in 2008 to 46% in 2009.[103]

text: In contrast, an October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade asked the following question:

text: In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[104]

text: In reply, 56 percent of respondents indicated favour while 40 percent indicated opposition. The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favours the U.S. Supreme Court decision." Anti-abortion activists have disputed whether the Harris poll question is a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision, because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.[105][106] The Harris poll has tracked public opinion about Roe since 1973:[104][107]

text: Regarding the Roe decision as a whole, more Americans support it than support overturning it.[108] When pollsters describe various regulations that Roe prevents legislatures from enacting, support for Roe drops.[108][109]

text: Role in subsequent decisions and politics

text: Opposition to Roe on the bench grew when President Reagan, who supported legislative restrictions on abortion, began making federal judicial appointments in 1981. Reagan denied that there was any litmus test: "I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench…. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We've had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating."[110]

text: In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor began dissenting from the Court's abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was "unworkable."[111] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be "reexamined";[112] the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the Court—Justice Antonin Scalia—vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Anthony Kennedy.

text: The Supreme Court of Canada used the rulings in both Roe and Doe v. Bolton as grounds to find Canada's federal law restricting access to abortions unconstitutional. That Canadian case, R. v. Morgentaler, was decided in 1988.[113]

text: Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

text: In a 5–4 decision in 1989's Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because "none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution."[114] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[114]

text: In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe.[114] Blackmun—author of the Roe opinion—stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were "callous" and "deceptive," that they deserved to be charged with "cowardice and illegitimacy," and that their plurality opinion "foments disregard for the law."[114] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe v. Wade was "warped."[112]

text: Planned Parenthood v. Casey

text: During initial deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices (Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) were willing to effectively overturn Roe. Kennedy changed his mind after the initial conference,[115] and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe,[116] saying, "Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. [...] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."[117] Only Justice Blackmun would have retained Roe entirely and struck down all aspects of the statute at issue in Casey.[80]

text: Scalia's dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Scalia concluded: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."[118]

text: Stenberg v. Carhart

text: During the 1990s, the state of Nebraska attempted to ban a certain second-trimester abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction (sometimes called partial birth abortion). The Nebraska ban allowed other second-trimester abortion procedures called dilation and evacuation abortions. Ginsburg (who replaced White) stated, "this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only 'a method of performing abortion'."[119] The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska ban by a 5–4 vote in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), citing a right to use the safest method of second trimester abortion.

text: Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5-4 Casey decision upholding Roe, was among the dissenters in Stenberg, writing that Nebraska had done nothing unconstitutional.[119] In his dissent, Kennedy described the second trimester abortion procedure that Nebraska was not seeking to prohibit, and thus argued that since this dilation and evacuation procedure remained available in Nebraska, the state was free to ban the other procedure sometimes called "partial birth abortion."[119]

text: The remaining three dissenters in Stenberg—Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas—disagreed again with Roe: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so."

text: Gonzales v. Carhart

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: In 2003, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. The Court had previously ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a state's ban on "partial birth abortion" was unconstitutional because such a ban did not have an exception for the health of the woman. The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, with John Roberts and Samuel Alito replacing Rehnquist and O'Connor, respectively. Further, the ban at issue in Gonzales v. Carhart was a clear federal statute, rather than a relatively vague state statute as in the Stenberg case.

text: On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges. Kennedy's opinion did not reach the question of whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart remained valid, and instead the Court stated that the challenged statute remained consistent with those past decisions whether or not those decisions remained valid.

text: Chief Justice John Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined the majority. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer dissented, contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed, and also noting that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act possibly exceeded the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause.

text: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

text: In the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,[120][121][122] the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court struck down these two provisions "facially" from the law at issue—that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts and not the legislatures.[123]

text: Activities of Norma McCorvey

text: Norma McCorvey became a member of the anti-abortion movement in 1995; she supported making abortion illegal until her death in 2017.[124] In 1998, she testified to Congress:

text: It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[20]

text: As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[125] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development, but Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot. On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.

text: Activities of Sarah Weddington

text: After arguing before the Court in Roe v. Wade at the age of 26, Sarah Weddington went on to be a representative in the Texas House of Representatives for three terms.[126] Weddington has also had a long and successful career as General Counsel for the United States Department of Agriculture, Assistant to President Jimmy Carter, lecturer at Texas Wesleyan University, and speaker and adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin.[126]

text: Presidential positions

text: President Richard Nixon did not publicly comment about the decision.[127] In private conversation later revealed as part of the Nixon tapes, Nixon said "There are times when an abortion is necessary, I know that. When you have a black and a white" (a reference to interracial pregnancies) "or a rape."[128][129] However, Nixon was also concerned that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family."[128]

text: Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Presidents Gerald Ford,[130] Ronald Reagan,[131] and George W. Bush.[132] President George H.W. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.[133][134] President Donald Trump has publicly opposed the decision, vowing to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court who would likely overturn Roe.[135]

text: President Jimmy Carter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights.[136] Roe was also supported by President Bill Clinton.[137] President Barack Obama has taken the position that "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[138]

text: State laws regarding Roe

text: Several states have enacted so-called trigger laws which would take effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[139] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe were reversed.[140]

text: Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[139]

text: The Mississippi Legislature has attempted to make abortion unfeasible without having to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Mississippi law as of 2012 was being challenged in federal courts and was temporarily blocked.[141]

text: In popular media

text:
The trial was the focus of the award-winning 1989 TV movie Roe vs. Wade starring Holly Hunter and directed by Gregory Hoblit.
"Roe vs Wade: The Musical" is the title of episode 12 of season 4 of Boston Legal, which aired January 23, 2008.

tag: ul


document_title: A Star Is Born (2018 film)

question_text: a star is born 2018 about what singer

question_tokens: a star is born 2018 about what singer

root

text: A Star Is Born (2018 film)

text: Plot

text: Jackson Maine, a famous country music singer privately battling an alcohol and drug addiction, plays a concert in California. His main support is Bobby, his manager and significantly older half-brother. After the show, Jackson happens upon a drag bar where he witnesses a performance by Ally, a waitress and singer-songwriter. Jackson is amazed by her talent; they spend the night speaking to each other, where Ally discloses to him the troubles she has faced in pursuing a professional music career.

text: Jackson invites Ally to his next show. Despite her initial refusal she attends and, with Jackson's encouragement, sings on stage with him. Jackson invites Ally to go on tour with him, and they form a romantic relationship. In Arizona, Ally and Jackson visit the ranch where Jackson grew up and where his father is buried, only to discover that Bobby sold the land. Angered at his betrayal, Jackson punches Bobby, who subsequently quits as his manager. Before doing so, Bobby reveals that he did inform Jackson about the sale, but the latter was too inebriated to notice.

text: While on tour Ally meets Rez, a record producer who offers her a contract. Although visibly bothered, Jackson still supports her decision. Rez refocuses Ally away from country music and towards pop. Jackson misses one of Ally's performances after he passes out drunk in public; he recovers at the home of his friend Noodles, and later makes up with Ally. There he proposes to Ally with a ring made from a loop of guitar string, and they are married that same day.

text: During Ally's performance on Saturday Night Live, Bobby reconciles with Jackson. Later, Jackson and Ally fight after he drunkenly voices his disapproval of Ally's new image and music, which is nominated for Grammy Awards. At the Grammys, a visibly intoxicated Jackson performs in a tribute to Roy Orbison, and Ally wins the Best New Artist award. When she goes up on stage to receive her award, Jackson follows her, where he wets himself and passes out. Ally's father Lorenzo berates Jackson and Ally helps him sober up. Jackson joins a drug rehabilitation program shortly thereafter.

text: Jackson recovers in rehab, where he discloses to his counselor that he attempted suicide as a teenager. He tearfully apologizes to Ally for his behavior, and returns home. Ally wishes to bring Jackson to perform with her on the European leg of her tour; Rez refuses, prompting Ally to cancel the remainder of the tour so she can care for Jackson.

text: Rez later confronts Jackson, informing him of Ally's decision to cancel her tour and accusing him of holding Ally back. That evening, Ally lies to Jackson, and tells him that her record label has cancelled her tour so she can focus on her second album. Jackson promises that he will come to her concert that night, but after Ally leaves, he hangs himself in their garage.

text: Ally becomes inconsolable after Jackson's death. She is visited by Bobby, who explains Jackson's death was his own fault and not hers. Ally takes a song that Jackson had written but never performed and sings it at a tribute concert, introducing herself as Ally Maine.

text: Cast

text:
Bradley Cooper as Jackson Maine, an established singer-songwriter and alcoholic. He is Ally's mentor and love interest.
Lady Gaga as Ally Campana-Maine, a nightclub singer-songwriter who is discovered by Jackson.
Sam Elliott as Bobby Maine, Jackson's older brother and manager.
Dave Chappelle as George "Noodles" Stone, Jackson's close friend, himself a retired musician.
Andrew Dice Clay as Lorenzo Campana, Ally's father.
Anthony Ramos as Ramon, Ally's friend.
Michael Harney as Wolfie, a limo driver and friend of Lorenzo.
Rafi Gavron as Rez Gavron, a music producer and Ally's manager.

text: Additionally, Rebecca Field appears as Gail, Shangela Laquifa Wadley as the drag bar emcee, Willam Belli as drag queen Emerald, Greg Grunberg as Jackson's driver Phil, and Ron Rifkin as Carl. Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real appear as Jackson's band,  Eddie Griffin appears as a local preacher and Luenell appears as a cashier. Marlon Williams, Brandi Carlile, Halsey, Alec Baldwin, and Don Roy King cameo as themselves.

text: Production

text: Development

text: In January 2011, it was announced that Clint Eastwood was in talks to direct Beyoncé in a third American remake of the 1937 film A Star Is Born; however, the project was delayed due to Beyoncé's pregnancy.[10] In April 2012, writer Will Fetters told Collider that the script was inspired by Kurt Cobain.[11] Talks with Christian Bale, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Johnny Depp, and Will Smith to play the male lead failed to come to fruition. On October 9, 2012, Beyoncé left the project, and it was reported that Bradley Cooper was in talks to star. Eastwood was interested in Esperanza Spalding to play the female lead.[12]

text: On March 24, 2015, Warner Bros. announced that Cooper was in final talks to make his directorial debut with the film, and potentially to star with Beyoncé, who was again in talks to join;[13] Cooper did become the male lead.[14][15][16] On August 16, 2016, it was reported that Lady Gaga had officially become attached and the studio had green-lit the project to begin production early 2017.[17] It marks the fourth remake of the original 1937 film, after the 1954 musical, the 1976 rock musical and the 2013 Bollywood romance film.[18] On November 9, 2016, it was reported that Ray Liotta was in talks to join the film in the role of the manager to Cooper's character, though he ultimately was not involved.[19] On March 17, 2017, Sam Elliott joined the film,[20] with Andrew Dice Clay entering negotiations to play Lorenzo, the father of Lady Gaga's character.[21] Clay was selected over Robert De Niro, John Turturro and John Travolta.[22] In April 2017, Rafi Gavron, Michael Harney, and Rebecca Field also joined the cast.[23]

text: Filming began on April 17, 2017.[2] In May, Dave Chappelle was cast in the film.[24] In April 2018, it was announced that Halsey would have a small role.[25]

text: Music

text: After seeing him perform at Desert Trip festival, Cooper approached Lukas Nelson (son of country music singer Willie Nelson) and asked him to help work on the film. Nelson agreed and wrote several songs, which he sent to the producers.[26] Nelson subsequently met Lady Gaga and began writing songs with her and she, in turn, provided backing vocals on two tracks on his self-titled 2017 album.[27] The soundtrack, performed by Gaga and Cooper, was released on October 5, 2018, by Interscope Records. The studio announced that the album "features 19 songs in a wide range of musical styles + 15 dialogue tracks that will take you on a journey that mirrors the experience of seeing the film."[28]

text: Release

text: A Star Is Born had its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival on August 31, 2018.[29][30] It also screened at the Toronto International Film Festival,[31] the San Sebastián International Film Festival, and the Zurich Film Festival in September 2018.[32][33] The film was theatrically released in the United States on October 5, 2018,[34] distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, after initially having been set for September 28, 2018, and May 18, 2018, releases.[35][36]

text: Reception

text: Box office

text: As of  October 29, 2018[update], A Star Is Born has grossed $149.9 million in the United States and Canada, and $106 million in other territories, for a total worldwide gross of $255.9 million, against a production budget of $36–40 million.[9]

text: In the United States and Canada, A Star Is Born grossed $1.35 million from select Tuesday and Wednesday night screenings, and $15.8 million on its first day, including $3.2 million from Thursday night previews. It went on to debut to $42.9 million for the weekend and finished second at the box office, behind fellow newcomer Venom.[8] The film remained in second place in its second, third and fourth weekends, grossing a respective $28 million, $19.3 million and $14.1 million.[37][38][39]

text: Outside North America, the film was released day-and-date with the U.S. in 31 other countries, and made $14.2 million in its opening weekend; its largest markets were the United Kingdom ($5.3 million), France ($2.1 million) and Germany ($1.9 million).[40]

text: Critical response

text: On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, A Star Is Born holds an approval rating of 90% based on 394 reviews, with an average rating of 8.1/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "With appealing leads, deft direction, and an affecting love story, A Star Is Born is a remake done right—and a reminder that some stories can be just as effective in the retelling."[43] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 88 out of 100, based on 60 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[44] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale,[45] while PostTrak reported film-goers gave it a 90% positive score.[8]

text: Alonso Duralde of TheWrap gave the film a positive review, saying, "Cooper and Lady Gaga are dynamite together; this is a story that lives and dies by the central relationship and the instant chemistry that must blossom between them, and these two have it in spades," and praised the musical numbers, describing them as "electrifying".[46] Owen Gleiberman of Variety lauded Cooper's directing, co-writing, and acting, and called the film "a transcendent Hollywood movie".[47] Leah Greenblatt of Entertainment Weekly gave the film a B+, singling out Gaga's performance, saying, "she deserves praise for her restrained, human-scale performance as a singer whose real-girl vulnerability feels miles away from the glittery meat-dress delirium of her own stage persona."[41] Stephanie Zacharek of Time magazine found the film superior to its previous iterations and similarly praised Cooper's direction, the writing, as well the performances and chemistry of Cooper and Gaga. She stated: "You come away feeling something for these people, flawed individuals who are trying to hold their cracked pieces of self together–or to mend the cracks of those they love," also describing Gaga's performance as a "knockout."[48]

text: In his review for Los Angeles Times, Justin Chang called the film "remarkable," and praised Cooper for his fresh take on the well-worn formula of 1937 film, as well his direction, the performances, writing, and the cinematography.[42] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone gave the film 4.5 out of five stars, and deemed it as a "modern classic," hailing the performances of Cooper and Gaga, and Cooper's direction. He found the film's screenplay and the original songs "seamless" and "terrific," and also called the film a major Oscar contender of the year and one of the year's best films.[49] The Washington Post's Ann Hornaday described the film as "lavishly delightful" and "earthly convincing," and added that it "offers a suitably jaundiced glimpse of starmaking machinery at its most cynical, but also its most thrilling and gratifying." She similarly praised Cooper's direction, the performances and chemistry of Cooper and Gaga, and the supporting performances, particularly Andrew Dice Clay and Sam Elliott.[50]

text: While praising the direction, acting, and writing, Michael Phillips in the Chicago Tribune argues that a A Star is Born's formula has always been very seductive to audiences, even when it has been written poorly, and Cooper's few missteps include being a bit of a scene hog.[51]  Admitting audiences love it, and he just liked it, Phillips drew attention to a skeptical review by Lindsey Romaine of Medium.com who criticized the story's marginalization of the Gaga character in dealing with Cooper's manipulative addict.  She at least wanted a scene where Gaga's character processed her behavior of letting the addict boyfriend get away with it.  Phillips argued that it is in part the skillful musicianship which gets audiences to blow past such flaws.[52]

text: Accolades

text:
Award

Date of ceremony

Category

Recipient(s) and nominee(s)

Result

Ref(s)

Hollywood Music in Media Awards

November 14, 2018

Best Original Song – Feature Film

"Shallow" by Lady Gaga, Mark Ronson, Anthony Rossomando, and Andrew Wyatt

Pending

[53]

Outstanding Music Supervision – Film

Julianne Jordan and Julia Michels

Pending

Best Soundtrack Album

A Star Is Born

Pending

Venice Film Festival

September 8, 2018

Smithers Foundation Award

A Star Is Born

Won

[54]

tag: table


document_title: The Incredible Hulk (film)

question_text: who played the part of the incredible hulk

text: The Incredible Hulk (film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: At Culver University in Virginia, General Thunderbolt Ross meets with Dr. Bruce Banner, the colleague and boyfriend of his daughter Betty, regarding an experiment that Ross claims is meant to make humans immune to gamma radiation. The experiment — part of a World War II era "super soldier" program that Ross hopes to recreate — fails, and the exposure to gamma radiation causes Banner to transform into the Hulk for brief periods of time, whenever his heart rate rises above 200. The Hulk destroys the lab and injures or kills the people inside. Banner becomes a fugitive from the U.S. military and Ross in particular, who wants to weaponize the Hulk process.

text: Five years later,[N 1] Banner works at a bottling factory in Rocinha, Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, while searching for a cure for his condition. On the Internet, he collaborates with a colleague he knows only as "Mr. Blue", and to whom he is "Mr. Green". He is also learning Yoga techniques to help keep control, and has not transformed in five months. After Banner cuts his finger, a drop of his blood falls into a bottle, and is eventually ingested by an elderly consumer in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, giving him gamma sickness. Using the bottle to track down Banner, Ross sends a special forces team, led by Russian-born British Royal Marine Emil Blonsky, to capture him. Banner transforms into the Hulk and defeats Blonsky's team. After Ross explains how Banner became the Hulk, Blonsky agrees to be injected with a small amount of a similar serum, which gives him enhanced speed, strength, agility, and healing, but also begins to deform his skeleton and impair his judgment.

text: Banner returns to Culver University and reunites with Betty, who is dating psychiatrist Leonard Samson. Banner is attacked a second time by Ross and Blonsky's forces, tipped off by the suspicious Samson, causing him to again transform into the Hulk. The ensuing battle outside the university proves to be futile for Ross' forces and they eventually retreat, though Blonsky, whose sanity is starting to falter, boldly attacks and mocks the Hulk. The Hulk seemingly kills Blonsky and flees with Betty. After the Hulk reverts to Banner, he and Betty go on the run, and Banner contacts Mr. Blue, who urges them to meet him in New York City. Mr. Blue is actually cellular biologist Dr. Samuel Sterns, who tells Banner he has developed a possible antidote to Banner's condition. After a successful test, he warns Banner that the antidote may only reverse each individual transformation. Sterns reveals he has synthesized Banner's blood samples, which Banner sent from Brazil, into a large supply, with the intention of applying its "limitless potential" to medicine. Fearful of the Hulk's power falling into the military's hands, Banner wishes to destroy the blood supply.

text: Meanwhile, Blonsky is revealed to have survived the earlier battle at Culver University and has completely healed. He joins Ross' forces for a third attempt to take Banner into custody. They succeed and Banner, along with Betty, are taken away in a helicopter. Blonsky stays behind and orders Sterns to inject him with Banner's blood, as he covets the Hulk's power. Sterns warns that the combination of the super-soldier formula and Banner's blood may cause him to become an "abomination", but Blonsky insists. The experiment mutates Blonsky into a creature with size and strength surpassing that of the Hulk, but drives him mad. He attacks Sterns, who gets some of Banner's blood in a cut on his forehead, causing him to begin mutating as well. Blonsky then rampages through Harlem. Realizing that the Hulk is the only one who can stop Blonsky, Banner convinces Ross to release him. He jumps from Ross' helicopter and transforms after hitting the ground. After a long and brutal battle through Harlem, the Hulk defeats Blonsky. After having a small, peaceful moment with Betty, the Hulk flees from New York.

text: A month later, Banner is in Bella Coola, British Columbia. Instead of trying to suppress his transformation, he successfully transforms in a controlled manner. In a final scene, Tony Stark approaches Ross at a local bar and informs him a team is being put together.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Edward Norton as Bruce Banner / Hulk:
A nuclear physicist and biochemist at Culver University who, because of exposure to gamma radiation, transforms into an enormous green humanoid monster when enraged or agitated. David Duchovny was a front-runner for the film before Norton's casting,[7] while Louis Leterrier's original choice for the role was Mark Ruffalo, who would later play Banner in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.[8] Gale Anne Hurd recalled Norton's portrayals of duality in Primal Fear and Fight Club,[9] while Norton reminded Kevin Feige of Bill Bixby, who played Banner in the TV series.[10] Lou Ferrigno, who played the Hulk with Bixby, remarked Norton "has a similar physique [and a] similar personality".[11] Norton was a Hulk fan, citing the first comic appearances, the Bixby TV show, and Bruce Jones' run on the comic, as his favorite depictions of the character.[12] He had expressed interest in the role for the first film.[13] He initially turned down the part, recalling "there [was] the wince factor or the defensive part of you that recoils at what the bad version of what that would be", as he felt the previous film "strayed far afield from a story that was familiar to people, [...] which is a fugitive story". When he met Leterrier and Marvel, he liked their vision, and believed they were looking to him to guide the project. Thus, Norton rewrote the script.[14] "Edward's script has given Bruce's story real gravitas," Leterrier said. "Admittedly I'm not the most adult director, but just because we're making a superhero movie it doesn't have to just appeal to 13-year-old boys. Ed and I both see superheroes as the new Greek gods."[15] Additionally, Lou Ferrigno provides vocal performance as the Hulk. During the 2008 New York Comic Con Leterrier publicly offered Ferrigno the chance to voice the Hulk for the film.[16] This marks the third time Ferrigno portrayed the Hulk, having also voiced the character in the 1996 animated series. Originally, the Hulk's only line was "Betty" at the film's ending, which would have been his first word. Leterrier was aware that fans wanted him to speak normally, and added "leave me alone" and "Hulk smash!" The latter line received cheers during a screening he attended.[17] Ferrigno also has a cameo in the film as a security guard who is bribed by Banner with a pizza.[18]
Liv Tyler as Betty Ross:
A cellular biologist and Bruce's girlfriend, from whom he is separated as a result of his condition. Tyler was attracted to the love story in the script, and was a fan of the TV show, because of the "humanity and what [Banner] is going through".[12] She was called about the role while driving to her home, and she accepted the part after a day without reading the script.[19] Tyler and Norton spent hours discussing Bruce and Betty's life before he became the Hulk.[20] She said filming the part "was very physical, which was fun",[21] and compared her performance to "a deer caught in the headlights", because of Betty's shock at Bruce's unexpected return into her life.[20]
Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky / Abomination:
A Russian-born officer in the United Kingdom's Royal Marines Commandos loaned to Ross who, lusting for the Hulk's power, is injected with various serums that transforms him into a near-skeletal humanoid monster more powerful than the Hulk himself. Roth said he took the part to please his sons, who are comic-book superhero fans. As a teenager, Roth was a fan of the 1970s TV series, and he also found Leterrier's ideas "very dark and very interesting". Roth started watching the 2003 film to prepare for the part, but stopped as he did not want to be caught up in the controversy over its quality, and to compare himself to it.[22] It was Roth who suggested Blonsky be a soldier, whereas in the comics he was a KGB agent.[23] Leterrier was a fan of Roth's work, and felt "it's great watching a normal Cockney boy become a superhero!",[15] but Marvel and Norton were initially reluctant to cast him.[24] Before he was cast in Punisher: War Zone, Ray Stevenson was in discussions for the role.[25] Roth prepared for the part by learning to fire guns and break into rooms with two experts.[23] Roth found it tough shooting the chases, because to show Blonsky's aging he could not work out.[20] He especially found it difficult to run while pulled with a harness, which was used to show the injected Blonsky's 30–40 mile per hour running abilities.[26] Cyril Raffaelli performed some of Roth's stunts.[9] Roth enjoyed the motion capture, which reminded him of fringe theatre, and he hired his trainer from Planet of the Apes to aid him in portraying the monster's movement.[20]
Tim Blake Nelson as Samuel Sterns: The cellular biologist who develops a possible antidote to Banner's condition. Towards the end of the film, Sterns is exposed to some substance that begins his transformation into Leader.
Ty Burrell as Leonard Samson:
A psychiatrist in a relationship with Betty during Bruce's absence. Burrell had performed with Norton in the off Broadway play Burn This in 2003, and when Leterrier met him, he recognized Burrell as the "jerk" from the 2004 Dawn of the Dead remake,[27] which was how Samson was characterized in the script before Norton's rewrote it.[28]
William Hurt as Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross:
Betty's arrogant father, who has dedicated himself to capturing the Hulk. Leterrier cast Hurt because "Ross is more physical, more explosive in this movie, and no actor goes from zero to 100 as well as William."[15] He compared Ross to Captain Ahab.[24] The Hulk is Hurt's favorite superhero, and his son is also a big fan of the character. Hurt found production very different from the typical "pure anxiety" of a studio film, finding it more akin to an independent film.[29] He described Ross as "humiliated by Hulk's conscience: he actually sees and recognizes that it's more developed than his own, even though he's a patriot and a warrior for his country. He's sacrificed [much] for that purpose, but at the expense at times of his humanity – which he occasionally recovers."[30] In June 2015, when reflecting on how his reprisal in Captain America: Civil War was different from this film, Hurt said, "What I created [for The Incredible Hulk] was a Ross who was right out of the graphic novel type of thing, where he was as much of a cartoon, in a way, as the monsters were. His ego was just as big and his problems were just as big. I really did do that consciously. I created a General Ross before which created a verisimilitude for the monsters, by making him a human monster. I worked really hard on the makeup and the exaggerated behavior and things like that and a controlled psychosis."[31] Sam Elliott had expressed interest in reprising the role from the first Hulk film.[32]

text: Robert Downey, Jr. has an uncredited cameo as Tony Stark at the end of the film. Downey appeared as a favor to Marvel Studios, which he acknowledged as a smart move on Marvel's part, because when he was promoting his film he would also have to mention their other production.[33] Hulk co-creator Stan Lee cameos as a man who becomes ill when drinking the soda poisoned by Banner's blood. Michael K. Williams appears as a Harlem bystander, a role that was written for him by Norton, who is a fan of The Wire.[34] Paul Soles, who voiced Banner in the 1966 The Marvel Superheroes cartoon, appears as Stanley, a kindly pizza restaurant owner who helps Banner. Additionally, the late Bill Bixby appears, in a scene on his TV comedy-drama The Courtship of Eddie's Father on a television Banner is watching at the beginning of the film. Rickson Gracie has a small role as Bruce Banner's martial arts instructor, despite his Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu background, he is credited as an Aikido instructor. Peter Mensah plays a small role as General Joe Gellar, one of General Ross' military friends/associates. Martin Starr plays a college student, credited as "Computer Nerd" and identified as Amadeus Cho in the novelization for the film.[35] Hulk supporting characters, Jim Wilson and Jack McGee, make cameo appearances as Culver University students played by P.J. Kerr and Nicholas Rose, respectively.[36]

text: Production[edit]

text: Development[edit]

text: At the time of the release of Ang Lee's Hulk, screenwriter James Schamus was planning a sequel, featuring the Grey Hulk. He was also considering the Leader and the Abomination as villains.[37] Marvel wanted the Abomination because he would be an actual threat to the Hulk, unlike General Ross.[38] During the filming of Hulk, producer Avi Arad had a target May 2005 theatrical release date.[39] On January 18, 2006 Arad confirmed Marvel Studios would be providing the money for The Incredible Hulk's production budget, with Universal distributing,[40] because Universal did not meet the deadline for filming a sequel.[7] Marvel felt it would be better to deviate from Ang Lee's style to continue the franchise, arguing his film was like a parallel universe one-shot comic book, and their next film needed to be, in Kevin Feige's words, "really starting the Marvel Hulk franchise". Producer Gale Anne Hurd also felt the film had to meet what "everyone expects to see from having read the comics and seen the TV series".[20]

text: Pre-production[edit]

text: Louis Leterrier, who enjoyed the TV series as a child and liked the first film,[9][20] had expressed interest in directing the Iron Man film adaptation. Jon Favreau had taken that project, so Marvel offered him the Hulk. Leterrier was reluctant as he was unsure if he could replicate Lee's style, but Marvel explained that was not their intent.[41] Leterrier's primary inspiration was Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's Hulk: Gray (a retelling of the character's first appearance). He replicated every comic book panel that he pinned-up during pre-production, from the many comics he browsed, in the final film.[9] Leterrier said that he planned to show Bruce Banner's struggle with the monster within him,[42] while Feige added the film would explore "that element of wish fulfillment, of overcoming an injustice or a bully and tapping into a strength that you didn't quite realize you had in yourself".[43] Arad also said the film would be "a lot more of a love story between Bruce Banner and Betty Ross".[44]

text: Zak Penn, who wrote a draft of the first film in 1996, said the film would follow up Hulk, but stressed it would be more tonally similar to the TV show and Bruce Jones' run on the comic. He compared his script to Aliens, which was a very different film from Alien, but still in the same continuity.[13] He included two scenes from his 1996 script: Banner jumping from a helicopter to trigger a transformation, and realizing he is unable to have sex with Betty.[45] After the studio rejected a treatment by another screenwriter in 2006, Penn wrote three drafts before departing in early 2007 to promote his film The Grand.[46] Norton, that April, began discussions to play Banner, and arranged a deal that included him as both an actor and a writer, with a screenplay draft he was contractually obligated to turn in within a month. He did so, and continued to polish his draft as late as halfway through principal photography.[46] In November 2006, a June 13, 2008 release date was set.[47] Leterrier acknowledged the only remaining similarity between the two films was Bruce hiding in South America,[9] and that the film was a unique reboot, as generally audiences would have expected another forty-minute origin story.[48] There were previous discussions to set the first act in Thailand.[49] Leterrier felt audiences were left restless waiting for the character to arrive in Ang Lee's film.[48] Feige commented, "we didn't want to tell the origin story again, because we thought people were so familiar with it, which is why we didn't tell that... One reason we made Incredible Hulk was to get Hulk into the [Marvel Cinematic Universe] canon."[50]

text: Shortly after the release of The Incredible Hulk, Gale Anne Hurd commented on the uncertainty of its relationship with Ang Lee's Hulk film. "We couldn't quite figure out how to term this ... It's kind of a reboot and it's kind of sequel." Hurd said that "requel", a portmanteau of "reboot" and "sequel", was a "perfect" description for the film.[51] Norton explained his decision to ignore Lee's origin story: "I don't even like the phrase 'origin story', and I don't think in great literature and great films that explaining the roots of the story doesn't mean it comes in the beginning."[12] "Audiences know this story," he added, "[so] deal with it artfully." He wanted to "have revelations even in the third act about what set this whole thing in motion".[14] The new origin story references Ultimate Marvel's take on the Hulk, which also had him created in an attempt to make super soldiers.[52] Norton removed Rick Jones and toned down S.H.I.E.L.D.'s presence.[20] He also added the scene where Banner attempts to extract a cure from a flower and his e-mailing with Samuel Sterns,[45] which references Bruce Jones' story.[53] Norton rewrote scenes every day.[22] Ultimately, the Writers Guild of America decided to credit the script solely to Penn,[54] who argued Norton had not dramatically changed his script. Journalist Anne Thompson explained "The Guild tends to favor plot, structure and pre-existing characters over dialogue."[45] Penn said in 2008, "I wasn't happy with [Norton] coming to Comic-Con saying that he wrote the script."[55] Before either Penn and Norton joined the project, an anonymous screenwriter wrote a draft and lobbied for credit.[45]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Leterrier had to direct four units with a broken foot.[15] Filming began on July 9, 2007. Shooting primarily took place in Toronto, because mayor David Miller is a Hulk fan and promised to be very helpful to the crew when closing Yonge Street for four nights in September to shoot Hulk and Blonsky's climactic fight. Despite messing up the street with explosives and overturned burning vehicles, the crew would clean it up within twenty minutes so business could continue as normal each day.[56] The first action sequence shot was the Culver University battle, which was filmed at the University of Toronto and Morningside Park. The filmmakers built a glass wall over a walkway at the University for when the soldiers trap Banner inside to smoke him out.[26] There was also shooting in the Financial District.[27] A factory in Hamilton, Ontario, which was due for demolition, was the interior of the Brazilian factory. The site's underground floors were used for Ross' military command center.[56] The crew also shot part of the Hulk and Blonsky's fight on a backlot in Hamilton.[57] Other Canadian locations included CFB Trenton and a glacier in Bella Coola, British Columbia.[27] Afterwards, there was a week-long shoot in New York City and two weeks in Rio de Janeiro.[58] While there, the crew shot at Rocinha, Lapa, Tijuca Forest and Santa Teresa. Filming concluded in November after eighty-eight days of filming.[27]

text: The Incredible Hulk joined Toronto's Green-Screen initiative, to help cut carbon emissions and waste created during filming.[59] 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.[27] The Incredible Hulk became the first blockbuster film to receive the Environmental Media Association's Green Seal, which is displayed during the end credits.[60]

text: Post-production[edit]

text: Leterrier cited Andy Serkis' motion capture portrayals of Gollum and King Kong in The Lord of the Rings and King Kong, respectively, as the standard he was aiming for.[41] Norton and Roth filmed 2500 takes of different movements the monsters would make (such as the Hulk's "thunder claps").[27] Phosphorescent face paint applied to the actors' faces and strobe lighting would help record the most subtle mannerisms into the computer.[61] Others including Cyril Raffaelli provided motion capture for stunts and fights,[23] after the main actors had done video referencing.[62] Leterrier hired Rhythm and Hues to provide the CGI, rather than Industrial Light & Magic who created the visual effects for Ang Lee's Hulk. Visual effect company, Image Engine, spent over a year working on a shot where Banner's gamma-irradiated blood falls through three factory floors into a bottle.[63] Overall 700 effects shots were created. Motion capture aided in placing and timing of movements, but overall key frame animation by Rhythm and Hues provided the necessary "finesse [and] superhero quality".[64] Many of the animators and Leterrier himself provided video reference for the climactic fight.[26]

text: Dale Keown's comic book artwork of the Hulk was an inspiration for his design.[41] Leterrier felt the first Hulk had "too much fat [and] the proportions were a little off". He explained, "The Hulk is beyond perfect so there is zero grams of fat, all chiseled, and his muscle and strength defines this creature so he's like a tank."[41] Visual effects supervisor Kurt Williams envisioned the Hulk's physique as a linebacker rather than a bodybuilder. A height of nine feet was chosen for the character as they did not want him to be too inhuman. To make him more expressive, computer programs controlling the inflation of his muscles and saturation of skin color were created. Williams cited flushing as an example of humans' skin color being influenced by their emotions.[27] The animators felt green blood would make his skin become darker rather than lighter, and his skin tones, depending on lighting, either resemble an olive or even gray slate.[61] His animation model was completed without the effects company's full knowledge of what he would be required to do: he was rigged to do whatever they imagined, in case the model was to be used for The Avengers film.[64] The Hulk's medium-length hair was modeled on Mike Deodato's art.[64] He originally had a crew cut, but Leterrier decided flopping hair imbued him with more character.[62] Leterrier cited An American Werewolf in London as the inspiration for Banner's transformation, wanting to show how painful it was for him to change.[65] As a nod to the live action TV series, Banner's eyes change color first when he transforms.[66] Leterrier changed the Abomination's design from the comics because he felt the audience would question why he resembled a fish or a reptile, instead of "an über-human" like the Hulk. Rather, his hideousness is derived from being injected multiple times into his skin, muscles and bones; creating a creature with a protruding spine and sharp bones that he can use to stab. His green skin is pale, and reflects light, so it appears orange because of surrounding fire during the climactic battle.[24] The motion capture performers, including Roth, tried to make the character behave less gracefully than the Hulk. They modeled his posture and the way he turns his head on a shark.[38] The character also shares Roth's tattoos.[67] A height of eleven feet was chosen for the character.[27] Leterrier tried to work in the character's pointed ears, but realized the Hulk would bite them off (using the example of Mike Tyson when he fought Evander Holyfield), and felt ignoring that would make the Hulk come across as stupid.[68]

text: Leterrier had planned to use prosthetic makeup and animatronics to complement the computer-generated imagery that was solely used in the previous film.[69] The make-up artists who worked on X-Men: The Last Stand were set to portray Blonsky's gradual transformation,[22] which Zak Penn said would portray Blonsky "not [being] used to having these properties. Like he's much heavier, and we talked about how when he walks down the sidewalk, his weight destroys the sidewalk and he's tripping. [It's all about] the humanization of these kinds of superhero characters, showing the effects physics may actually have on [them]."[70] Tom Woodruff, Jr. of Amalgamated Dynamics (who created all the costumes for the Alien films since Alien 3) was in negotiations, and created two busts of the Hulk and prosthetic hands to act as stand-ins for the character. A full animatronic was never created as it was decided it would complicate production to set up shots for a puppet and then a computer graphic.[71] An animatronic was used for Sterns' mutating head, however.[57] Destruction was mostly done practically. A model of a bottling machine was smashed through a wall for when the Hulk escapes the factory. The filmmakers used steam and dry ice for the gas used to smoke out the Hulk, and they destroyed a real Humvee by dropping a weight on it when shooting the Culver University battle. Pipes blew fire for when the Hulk strikes down the computer-generated helicopter. When Banner falls from the helicopter to trigger the Hulk into fighting the Abomination, Norton was attached to a surface held by a bar which turned 90 degrees while the camera was pulled to the ceiling to simulate falling. Leterrier jokingly remarked that making Norton fall that distance would obviously render him unable to act.[26]

text: Music[edit]

text: The score for the film was composed by Craig Armstrong, who was the arranger for Massive Attack, a band Leterrier was fond of and had collaborated with on the 2005 film Unleashed. Armstrong was his first choice, which surprised Marvel, not knowing if he had scored an action film (he did compose 2001's Kiss of the Dragon).[72] At Leterrier's suggestion, the soundtrack was released on a two-disc album, which Armstrong thought was a joke until he compiled the album and Marvel asked him why they were given only one disc.[73] The films score borrow's Joe Harnell's theme "The Lonely Man" from the 1978 Incredible Hulk television series.[74]

text: Release[edit]

text: The Incredible Hulk premiered on June 8, 2008 at the Gibson Amphitheatre in Universal City, California[75] and was released in theaters on June 13.[47]

text: Editing[edit]

text: Seventy minutes of footage, mostly dealing with the origin, were not included in the final cut.[28] Much of this back-story was unscripted and the filmmakers were never sure of including it into the final cut, and had considered releasing some of these clips on the internet.[18] Editor Kyle Cooper, creator of the Marvel logo (with the flipping pages) and the montage detailing Iron Man's biography in that film, edited together much of this footage into the opening credits.[18] Leterrier explained a negative test screening, where flashbacks were placed across the film that the audience found too similar to Hulk, had resulted in compressing these to the film's start.[28] This replaced the original opening, where Banner comes to the Arctic to commit suicide. When the scene ends, in an instant the frozen body of Captain America is partially seen in the ice. Leterrier said he did not want this scene to be lost amid the opening montage.[28]

text: Norton and Leterrier disputed with the producers over the final running time: they wanted it to be near 135 minutes, while the producers wanted the film to be under two hours. This was made public, and rumors spread that Norton "made it clear he won't cooperate with publicity plans if he's not happy with the final product".[76] Norton dismissed this, "Our healthy process [of collaboration], which is and should be a private matter, was misrepresented publicly as a 'dispute', seized on by people looking for a good story, and has been distorted to such a degree that it risks distracting from the film itself, which Marvel, Universal and I refuse to let happen. It has always been my firm conviction that films should speak for themselves and that knowing too much about how they are made diminishes the magic of watching them."[77]

text: Marketing[edit]

text:
"We know the Hulk from 2003 didn't satisfy the fans, and we had to acknowledge that. We emphasized the passion that fans still have for this character and that this is the movie people have always wanted."

—Stephanie Sperber, executive vice-president of Universal Studios Partnerships[78]

tag: div

text: Effort was made to promote the story as having a romance and a physical antagonist, and the title was used for promotional puns (such as 7-Eleven's "Incredible Gulp" slurpees, and "Incredible Dad" themed Father's Day gifts at Kmart). Burger King also promoted the film, and General Nutrition Centers used the title character as a role model for strength training.[78] Hasbro created the toy line, which they released on May 3, 2008,[79] while Sega released a video game on June 5, 2008.[80] The film was promoted in an episode of American Gladiators on June 9, 2008, which was hosted by Hulk Hogan and featured Lou Ferrigno.[81]

text: Following the edit dispute, Universal's Adam Fogleson and Norton planned a promotional tour which would avoid constant media interviews and therefore uncomfortable questions. He attended the premiere, took part in a Jimmy Kimmel Live! sketch and would also promote the film in Japan.[45] However, during the film's release he chose to do charity work in Africa.[82]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The Incredible Hulk was released on Blu-ray and DVD on October 21, 2008. It includes behind-the-scenes featurettes, audio commentary, deleted scenes, and an alternate opening.[83][84] The film was number one in sales when released on DVD and Blu-ray on October 21, 2008, in the United States (having been available in the United Kingdom since October 13). There are widescreen and fullscreen single-disc editions; a three-disc special edition; and a two-disc Blu-ray package. The first disc contains an audio commentary by Leterrier and Roth, while the second comes with special features and deleted scenes, and the third with a digital copy of the film. The Blu-ray edition compresses the content of the first two DVDs onto one, while the second disc contains the digital copy.

text: The film was also collected in a 10-disc box set titled "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled" which includes all of the Phase One films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.[85] It was released by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment on April 2, 2013.[86]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The Incredible Hulk earned $134.8 million in North America, as well as $128.6 million internationally for a worldwide total of $263.4 million.[3] The film, even though it barely passed its predecessor, and only equalled it if the smaller budget of the first film is taken into account, is still considered successful. Entertainment analyst David Davis told The Hollywood Reporter, "The first Hulk had such high expectations after the NBC Universal merger and was supposed to be critical favorite Ang Lee's breakout commercial blockbuster. Then with the new Hulk film, Marvel was able to underplay the importance of the success after the great success of Iron Man this summer. So the new one overdelivered, relative to its underpromise."[87]

text: North America[edit]

text: In its opening weekend, the film grossed $55.4 million in 3,505 theaters in the United States and Canada, ranking No. 1 at the box office.[88] The previous film earned $62.2 million in its opening weekend, but dropped 70% in its second weekend. The second film by comparison, dropped 60% in its second weekend.[89] Behind Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, it was the second-highest gross for a film released over a Father's Day weekend.[90] This surpassed industry expectations of a $45 million opening, following the disappointing response to the 2003 film. Universal believed word of mouth would contribute to the film breaking even eventually.[2]

text: Outside North America[edit]

text: It also opened in thirty-eight other countries, adding $31 million to the total opening. The film outgrossed the 2003 film in South Korea, while its openings in Mexico and Russia created records for Universal.[91] The film grossed 24 million yuan (roughly $3.4 million) in its Chinese opening on August 26, outgrossing the previous film's overall gross of ten million yuan.[92]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 67% approval rating with an average rating of 6.2/10 based on 225 reviews. The website's consensus reads, "The Incredible Hulk may not be quite the smashing success that fans of Marvel's raging behemoth might hope for, but it offers more than enough big green action to make up for its occasionally puny narrative."[93] Metacritic gave the film an average score of 61 out of 100, based on 38 reviews. The site characterized reviews as "generally favorable".[94] A CinemaScore poll indicated the majority of viewers were male and graded the film an A-, and 82% of them had seen the 2003 film.[95]

text: Todd McCarthy of Variety said, "what seemed, in theory, the least-necessary revival of a big screen superhero emerges as perfectly solid summer action fare in The Incredible Hulk." He emphasized "it's all par-for-the-course cinematic demolition and destruction, staged efficiently and with a hint of enthusiasm," and "penned with sporadic wit [...] Visuals lean toward the dark and murky, but editing by three—actually six—hands is fleet, and Craig Armstrong's ever-present score is simultaneously bombastic and helpfully supportive of the action. Effects are in line with pic's generally pro but not inspired achievements."[96] Rene Rodriguez of The Miami Herald applauded that the film "does a lot of things [Ang] Lee's Hulk didn't: It's lighter and faster-paced, it's funnier and it embraces (instead of ignoring) the 1970s TV series that furthered the character's popularity".[97] Mark Rahner of The Seattle Times wrote that, "The relaunch of Marvel's green goliath is an improvement over director Ang Lee's ponderous 2003 Hulk in nearly every way – except that the actual Hulk still looks scarcely better than something from a video game, and he still barely talks".[98] Lou Lumenick of the New York Post said, "What lingers in my memory ... is the lengthy, essentially animated climactic battle between the Hulk and the Abomination on the streets and rooftops of Harlem, and an earlier showdown between the title creature and the U.S. Army, which is deploying high-tech weapons including sound-wave cannons. These are expertly staged by director Louis Leterrier, who disposes of the backstory under the opening credits and wraps up the whole thing in twenty-four minutes less than [Ang] Lee took".[99] Roger Ebert was not a fan of the film stating, "The Incredible Hulk is no doubt an ideal version of the Hulk saga for those who found Ang Lee's Hulk too talky, or dare I say, too thoughtful. But not for me. It sidesteps the intriguing aspects of Hulkdom and spends way too much time in, dare I say, noisy and mindless action sequences."[100]

text: Conversely, Christy Lemire of the Associated Press found that "the inevitable comparisons to Iron Man, Marvel Studios' first blockbuster this summer, serve as a glaring reminder of what this Hulk lacks: wit and heart. Despite the presence of Edward Norton, an actor capable of going just as deep as Robert Downey Jr., we don't feel a strong sense of Bruce Banner's inner conflict".[101] A.O. Scott of The New York Times opined, "'The Adequate Hulk' would have been a more suitable title. There are some big, thumping fights and a few bright shards of pop-cultural wit, but for the most part this movie seems content to aim for the generic mean".[102] David Ansen of Newsweek wrote, "Leterrier has style, he's good with action and he's eager to give the audience its money's worth of bone-crunching battles. Still, once the movie leaves the atmospheric Brazilian settings, nothing in this "Hulk" sinks in deeply: its familiar genre pleasures are all on the surface. ... The movie's scene stealer is Tim Blake Nelson, making a comically welcome third act appearance as the unethical but madly enthusiastic scientist Samuel Sterns".[103]

text: The film was nominated for best superhero film at the 2008 National Movie Awards and for Best Science Fiction Film at the Saturn Awards, but lost to The Dark Knight and Iron Man, respectively.[104][105]

text: Future[edit]

text: On a potential sequel, Norton said, "The whole thing was to envision it in multiple parts. We left a lot out on purpose. [The Incredible Hulk is] definitely intended as chapter one."[14] Leterrier made the film's final shot of Banner ambiguous; the thought being if there is a sequel, it would mean Banner finally masters control over his anger; if there is not a sequel, the shot indicates instead that he becomes a menace in The Avengers.[106] Leterrier had also intended for a scene in the credits showing Blonsky, human once more, imprisoned and chained in a box.[107] The character of Samuel Sterns, played by Tim Blake Nelson, was introduced to set him up as a villain in a possible future film, where he would become the Leader.[20][108] Aaron Sims, the lead designer on The Incredible Hulk, also took time to work on concepts for the Leader.[109] Nelson is "signed on" to reprise the role.[110] Ty Burrell wants to portray the superpowered Doc Samson faithfully to the comics.[110]

text: Leterrier and Roth were originally contracted to return. Leterrier also stated Norton was not signed on,[111] but in October 2008, Hurd stated that Norton was contracted to reprise the role.[112] The film had outgrossed its predecessor and Universal indicated interest in a sequel,[113] though Leterrier believed a sequel would not be made because of the film's box office return.[114] Feige said the film met Marvel's expectations and that Hulk would return, but after the crossover.[115] Hurd was not concerned that a sequel may not be produced until at least 2012, citing the positive reception to the film and having produced the Terminator series, the second and third film of which had a 12-year gap.[112] Tim Roth confirmed that Marvel had signed him for three more films.[116] Leterrier, after having previously said he did not want to direct a sequel,[117] said in late 2009 he had changed his mind and was now amenable.[118]

text: Mark Ruffalo began his role as Banner / Hulk in The Avengers, after Feige said he chose not to bring back Norton.[119][120] In October 2014, Norton claimed he chose never to play Hulk again because he "wanted more diversity" with his career, and did not want to be associated with only one character.[121] In April 2012, despite Ruffalo being on board to play the Hulk in the sequel, Feige confirmed to Collider that Marvel had no plans at that time to film another Hulk film.[122] In a Q&A session, Feige and Ruffalo confirmed that discussions are underway to produce another Hulk film due to the positive audience response to Ruffalo's performance in The Avengers.[123] In September 2012, Feige, while exploring all possible story options for a sequel film, including a film based on the "Planet Hulk" and "World War Hulk" storylines, stated, "everything [in terms of stories from the comics] is on the table. Do I think Hulk can carry a movie and be as entertaining as he was in Avengers? I do believe that. I do believe he absolutely could. We certainly are not even going to attempt that until Avengers 2. So there's a lot of time to think about it."[124]

text: In June 2014, Ruffalo said he believed the studio might be considering doing a new standalone Hulk film, saying, "I think they are, for the first time, entertaining the idea of it. When we did The Avengers it was basically 'No!', and now there is some consideration for it. But there's still nothing definitive, not even a skeletal version of what it would be."[125] In July, Feige stated that the studio was not considering a "Planet Hulk" film at that time, due to wanting to feature Ruffalo's Banner in the film. However, he did not rule out a story that saw the Hulk and Banner end up in space and explained why a solo Hulk film did not occur in Phase Two of the MCU by saying, "After the first Avengers, Iron Man had his own movie, Thor had his own movie, Captain America had his own movie, and Widow and Fury were in The Winter Soldier. So it was really about, frankly, saving somebody so that the only place you could get Hulk between Avengers movies is the next Avengers movie, so [director Joss Whedon] could continue to play with that in [Avengers: Age of Ultron]. Where we go after that, we'll see."[126] In October 2014, again on a solo film, Feige said, "We'll see. We'd love to do it, we'd love to find the place to put it, but right now, Hulk will be appearing, with his friends, in their [Phase Three] films."[127]

text: In April 2015, Ruffalo said Universal holding the distribution rights to Hulk films may be an obstacle to releasing a future Hulk standalone film[128] and reiterated this in October 2015,[129] and July 2017.[130] Marvel reacquired the film rights for the character, but Universal retained the distribution rights for The Incredible Hulk as well as the right of first refusal to distribute future Hulk films.[131] According to The Hollywood Reporter, a potential reason why Marvel has not reacquired the film distribution rights to the Hulk as they did with Paramount Pictures for the Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America films is because Universal holds the theme park rights to several Marvel characters that Marvel's parent company, Disney, wants for its own theme parks.[132] In December 2015, Ruffalo stated that the strained relationship between Marvel and Universal may be another obstacle to releasing a future standalone Hulk film.[133] The following month, he indicated that the lack of a standalone Hulk film allowed the character to play a more prominent role in Thor: Ragnarok, Avengers: Infinity War, and the latter's untitled sequel, stating, "We’ve worked a really interesting arc into Thor[: Ragnarok], Avengers[: Infinity War], and [the latter's sequel] for Banner that I think will – when it’s all added up – will feel like a Hulk movie, a standalone movie."[134]

text: Notes[edit]

text: Jump up ^ According to Leterrier, the film takes place about five years since Banner first transformed.[4] The events of the film also take place simultaneously with the events of Iron Man 2 (2010) and Thor (2011),[5] the former of which is set six months after the events of Iron Man (2008).[6]

tag: ol