I enjoyed Norton's Hulk but...

[M'rk son of Mogh]

I love the folks who think is was great to turn the Hulk comic into this pseudo-intelectual 'thoughtful' story.

Make all the movies like that you want---but don't call it Hulk.


BEWARE POPO BAWA !!!!

Looks like somebody didn't read the more interesting Bill Mantlo and Peter David Hulk stories when it was, you know, selling well and critically acclaimed.

Sometimes it's disappointing to read people's thoughts on what "their" version of a character is supposed to be when they're obviously quite out of touch with how the character is and has been portrayed as for more than half its life.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

They have yet to make a great Hulk movie. And next time, I want to see a gamma bomb origin. There is something iconic about this image that was missing from both films.

This isn't the 60's anymore. Above ground nuclear testing sights that allow civilians to drive through on a dare as the tests are going on aren't exactly common place and haven't been for quite some time.

 

[theenglish]

The best thing about the Norton version was it made me appreciate the Lee version more. Maybe for the next film they could not do an incredibly derivative military chase movie that completely ignores any psychological insight into Banner or the Hulk.

bs
I had to sit in a theater with a hundred parents and watch them squirm as their kids watched all that non-sense father/son BS that had nothing to do with the original comic. Turning a summer popcorn action flick into a slow boring daitribe about an insane abusive father was idiotic.

I love the folks who think is was great to turn the Hulk comic into this pseudo-intelectual 'thoughtful' story.

Make all the movies like that you want---but don't call it Hulk.


BEWARE POPO BAWA !!!!

I said something very similar about the recent Star Trek film for very similar reasons and had tons of people trash me for it.

 

[Captaindemotion]

It's odd that LOTR featured a CGI Gollum that was much more convincing than either of the Hulks in those movies, despite being made some years earlier - and we all know how quickly technology progresses.

I actually liked the way The Thing was done in the FF movies but I dont think it would work for The Hulk. He's just too big to be done by a man in a suit and prosthetics. Has to be CGI - though movies like Iron Man have shown how effective a mix of CGI and 'real' SFX can be.

The issue is somewhat academic as there doesn't appear to be any plan for a sequel or another reboot (though the character may appear in the Avengers movie). However, one can only hope, if not assume, that the technology will continue to improve to the state where the next onscreen incarnation of Dr Banner's alter-ego will look entirely convincing.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I enjoyed both movies but I think I prefer the 2008 version more. I would have loved it had they kept scenes excercised from Norton's screenplay.

Also, producer Gale Ann Hurd mentioned a while back that there are plans for a sequel, featuring Tim Blake Nelson as The Leader, but a sequel will most likely have to be postponed until after The Avengers.

 

[Harvey]

I said something very similar about the recent Star Trek film for very similar reasons and had tons of people trash me for it.

You thought Star Trek (2009) was trying to be intellectual? You could trash that movie for many things, but for trying to be intellectual I would say is not one of them.

 

[theenglish]

I said something very similar about the recent Star Trek film for very similar reasons and had tons of people trash me for it.

You thought Star Trek (2009) was trying to be intellectual? You could trash that movie for many things, but for trying to be intellectual I would say is not one of them.

oops, my bad...not quite the way I meant that.

 

[Harvey]

Oops. My bad then. Uh...carry on.

 

[JuanBolio]

The actions scenes make Ang Lee's Hulk worth the watch, but they are about all.

Liked Norton's much more, although as with the first film the CGI was a bit cartoonish at times. Still, I guess its the best they can do these days.

 

[Grant]

The center of Ang lee's movie is pretty good----from the clobbering of talbot to the fight on the F-22. But every time the story got good---here comes insane Nick Nolte.

And yes I did miss the much acclaimed 'Mantlo' version of Hulk and GUESS WHAT----so did millions of other Hulk fans because comics were 10 times as popular in the 60s as they are recently AND they should have been capitalizing on the TV show as well.

Not wasting their time making a version of a more recent, more 'relevent', more 'intelligent' story that not one in a hundred folks in the audience had ever read.

The big draw in 2003 was fans of the TV show and fans of the 60s & 70s comics.


WHEN I CAME ABOARD !!!

 

[TIN_MAN]

What about the grey Hulk, might that be more convincing CGI than green skin? We got a 'flash' of what this would look like when the lightening strikes in the second movie (in the Hulk and Betty on the mountain scene).

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Well green skin will never be convincing. I mean a lime green man with muscles running around in torn pants? Ridiculous image. The CGI Hulks were the best it ever looked. I grew up on the whole Ferrigno thing and the only reason I bought into it was that I was a toddler when the show premiered. If it had premiered a decade later I would have been laughing at the show. It's only sentiment on a lot of people's part that let them convince themselves that a bodybuilder in green grease paint looks better than the CGI version.

 

[melancholymecha]

I have a question- has there ever been a comic where Banner hulks out physically, but keeps his intelligence & has no rage impulses, at least temporarily? I guess like what happenned to She-Hulk? Maybe that would be an interesting situation for another film/sequel, of course not that he'd stay like that for the whole film, but it would be something new.

 

[mswood]

Yes quite a few, in fact. In fact it seems like at one time or another there has been every sort of possible hulk.

 

[TIN_MAN]

Yeah, they even considered doing that on the TV show before it was cancelled, would have been interesting, I think?

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

And yes I did miss the much acclaimed 'Mantlo' version of Hulk and GUESS WHAT----so did millions of other Hulk fans because comics were 10 times as popular in the 60s as they are recently AND they should have been capitalizing on the TV show as well.

Not wasting their time making a version of a more recent, more 'relevent', more 'intelligent' story that not one in a hundred folks in the audience had ever read.

The big draw in 2003 was fans of the TV show and fans of the 60s & 70s comics.


WHEN I CAME ABOARD !!!

The draw isn't the 60's and 70s's comics, that's incredibly narrow minded. And the target demographics of this movie aren't exactly that old to have read those first hand.

Besides, 1985 isn't exacly recent. And I think you exaggerate just a tad when you mention the number of Hulk comic fans from the 60's (wasn't his title cancelled in the 60's due to lack of sales? Eventually brought back again by the end of the decade) that were disappointed by the movie. Comic book readers are a small and fragmented enough group that worrying about what those few think shouldn't be the basis of a movie.

Interesting you note, also, that they shouldn't waste their time with "intelligent" stories, just stick with the stuff from the 60's. Because stagnation and growth into something greater are bad things in your world?

Should X-Men have also avoided using "God Loves Man Kills" for X-Men 2, my favourite of the series? '82 is recent to you, and recent should not be used as a rule. Should Batman stop using Frank Miller's "recent" work of the 80's as its main influence?

I mean, why look at the critically acclaimed parts of a book (basis for the X-Men movies, Spider-Man, etc) which seem to work when you can go to the worst and most boring?

 

[Grant]

Arrogance AND pomposity---great.

The target audience for the 2003 Hulk movie WAS people who grew up with the 60s/70s comics (and the TV show) AND their kids (who had probably never read a comic.)
And fans of the newer more 'realistic' modern versions of the character would not have been turned off by the classic version, anyway.

But many parents were turned off big-time by all the psycho-babble nonsense and child abuse (including a madman killing his wife with a child in the next room.)

If you don't understand these facts you're hopless.

But others do and are not.


WHEN I CAME ABOARD !!!

 

[dru]

The target audience for the 2003 Trek movie WAS people who grew up with the 60s/70s comics (and the TV show) AND their kids (who had probably never read a comic.)

Err TREK movie?

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

The target audience for the 2003 Trek movie WAS people who grew up with the 60s/70s comics (and the TV show) AND their kids (who had probably never read a comic.)

Most things I read say the whole purpose of the summer blockbuster is to appeal to the out of school young adult/teenage crowd, both of which are too young to have grown up with the original run of the comic.

But many parents were turned off big-time by all the psycho-babble nonsense and child abuse (including a madman killing his wife with a child in the next room.)

Strange that viewers and their children of the Adam West Batman weren't turned off by the newer interpretations as well.

Besides, both movies didn't live up to expectations, so I guess people don't want the latter intelligent stories or the stupid stories based on the earlier work.

Guess we, and the movie makers, just don't know the true target audience.

 

[Grant]

The target audience for the 2003 Trekk movie WAS people who grew up with the 60s/70s comics (and the TV show) AND their kids (who had probably never read a comic.)

Err TREK movie?

Hulk/Trek it's all the same

Thanks for that, though.


WHEN I CAME ABOARD !!!