I enjoyed Norton's Hulk but...

[Grant]

Nope.

My experience at both the Hulk movie openings was tons of 35-60 years old men and lots of them had their wives and kids with them (unfortunately so in the case of the first movie)


Sure there were youngs teens and folks in their 20, but those people aren't neccessarily fans of ANY version of the comic and people that age do love action movies that don't have to be 'intelligent'

Calling the first movie 'intelligent' and the second 'stupid' proves your ARE an arrogant, pompous, elitist who thinks you have such great taste that an ordinary action movie is beneath you.

The second movie with Norton, Hurt & Roth was not in the least bit 'stupid'. that's actually a pretty stupid statement to make.

What is stupid is Universal thinking that Ang Lee's pretentous movie would appeal to a summer action-movie audience.
If anybody other than Ang Lee had handed in that cut of the movie they would have cut out 15 minutes of the nonsense psychological drivel and salvaged the movie.

 

[Peter the Younger]

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.)

Ask anyone in the industry, the target audience for big budget blockbusters is the 13-25 year old demo (exceptions made for Titanic, and intentionally family-oriented studios like Disney.) Most of the time, middle-aged folks aren't even a blip on the radar, sorry. Anecdotes are fine, but they aren't evidence.

As for The Two Hulks: there was a lot I liked about the Ang Lee film, but he went too far in a number of places: Too self-conscious about the source medium (the comic book split screens), too experimental with his actors (Bana and Nolte acted like they were doing a stage play), and too in love with what he filmed to edit for pacing. As for the changes to the origin, I was torn on it. I knew it would rub people the wrong way, but the whole "aging father steals the potency of the son" thing was pretty mythic. I wish he could have found another superhero to tell that sort of story.

Norton's Hulk suffered from the opposite problem, I think; it didn't go far enough. The plot was serviceable, the acting was serviceable (with the exception of Liv Tyler, who actually surprised me for once) but none of it really stood out, nothing showed me why this film had to be made, except to set up the Avengers.

Then again, maybe that's okay. A part of me thinks that the Hulk isn't as complex as we would like it to be. Boil it down and it's basically Jekyll and Hyde with less dialogue and more fistfights. That's a compelling idea, but it doesn't resonate for me the way say, Batman or the X-Men do. Maybe it's enough to say, just let "Hulk Smash!" and be done with it.

 

[Shazam!]

I personally prefer Ang Lee's Hulk. It just has a sucky ending. The latest film was too 'lightweight' for me. For instance, the Leader transformation scene - something that could really channel the horror of gamma mutation, man changing into something... else. But no. Instead he has a big daft grin on his face.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Then again, maybe that's okay. A part of me thinks that the Hulk isn't as complex as we would like it to be. Boil it down and it's basically Jekyll and Hyde with less dialogue and more fistfights. That's a compelling idea, but it doesn't resonate for me the way say, Batman or the X-Men do. Maybe it's enough to say, just let "Hulk Smash!" and be done with it.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner.

For instance, the Leader transformation scene - something that could really channel the horror of gamma mutation, man changing into something... else. But no. Instead he has a big daft grin on his face.

Um now my only experience with the character the Leader is with an episode of the 90's animated Hulk series but I took the character to like the fact that his mutation makes him basically the smartest man on the entire planet, so could you really be horrified by a gamma mutation if with the only downside being the rather larg skull/head you now make Albert Einstein look like a total idot in comparison to your new uber intellect.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I personally find the "Norton Hulk" film far better than a Ang Lee's attempt. It is a good mesh between ideas from the TV show and the comics, I think.

 

[Shazam!]

so could you really be horrified by a gamma mutation if with the only downside being the rather larg skull/head you now make Albert Einstein look like a total idot in comparison to your new uber intellect.

If it was completely rad, everyone would be trying to do it. I'd also imagine that the transformation of your skull and brain would at least be a little bit painful.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I liked both movies; overall, I think Lee's was better. They both had strenghts and weaknesses.

I loved Lee's interesting directing style, the seriousness he gave things, and the way he handled General Ross.

In Leterrier's, I think Bruce and Betty are both a lot more empathetic (Bana and Connelly are overall better actors, but Norton and Tyler seem more suited to this sort of role), and the fight scenes are better (if David Banner had become the Abomination instead of the Absorbing Man at the end of the first one, it would have made for a better climax). But, while the fight scenes are better, the actual villains in Leterrier's are nowhere near as interesting; Roth phones it in, and this version of General Ross has everything that was interesting in the 2003 version sucked out of him (not once, for example, do you get the sense he cares at all about Betty).

 

[Aike]

I have only seen The Incredible Hulk with Northon. It was so so.

I think they should stop making super hero movies about the boring and superficial heroes like the Hulk, Iron Man and Fantastic Four. Concentrate on Batman, Superman and Spiderman instead.

 

[drychlick]

i would love to see a real man play the hulk in the next move! work for the ff movie will work for the next move! i watch the oid tv show it was great having too people as the hulk! by the way i love the 2008 movie and hate the 2003 1 too long and too bad dad chap ! gave action all the way! love dr

 

[Dream]

I'm not a fan of Ang Lee's Hulk. The actors are good but there are huge problems with the pacing and story. Frankly I thought it was boring the first time I watched it. I always find it hard to believe that the same man that made Hulk also made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

The Incredible Hulk was much better. It knows it's a superhero movie and doesn't take forever to get going. Also the action is better done.

 

[Captaindemotion]

I think they should stop making super hero movies about the boring and superficial heroes like the Hulk, Iron Man and Fantastic Four. Concentrate on Batman, Superman and Spiderman instead.

Who's this 'they'? Entirely different crews of people are behind the movies you mentioned. Marvel makes IM and Hulk, Sony makes Spidey, and, er, can't remember who makes FF. WB make the DC movies. And all of them have different directors and writers. It's not like the same 2 guys are sitting in a sweatbox making all superhero movies.

Besides which, if you don't want to see any of those movies, you have the option of remaining at home and not going to see them. Just an idea ...

 

[Shazam!]

I think they should stop making super hero movies about the boring and superficial heroes like the Hulk, Iron Man and Fantastic Four. Concentrate on Batman, Superman and Spiderman instead.

The ones who have already had dozens of movies between them?

 

[JacksonArcher]

I liked both movies; overall, I think Lee's was better. They both had strenghts and weaknesses.

I loved Lee's interesting directing style, the seriousness he gave things, and the way he handled General Ross.

In Leterrier's, I think Bruce and Betty are both a lot more empathetic (Bana and Connelly are overall better actors, but Norton and Tyler seem more suited to this sort of role), and the fight scenes are better (if David Banner had become the Abomination instead of the Absorbing Man at the end of the first one, it would have made for a better climax). But, while the fight scenes are better, the actual villains in Leterrier's are nowhere near as interesting; Roth phones it in, and this version of General Ross has everything that was interesting in the 2003 version sucked out of him (not once, for example, do you get the sense he cares at all about Betty).

I agree that General Ross and Betty were a lot more interesting in Lee's version. One of Lee's themes was about dominant parents and the damage they do to their kids, making more introverted and somewhat internally tortured offspring. Leterrier's version had none of that pathos. It was much more a straightforward, "chase" movie in the vein of the TV show while Lee's film was far more cerebral and complex (and some might complain convoluted). I can appreciate both movies for these differences but my biggest gripe with Lee's version is his depiction of Banner. He's too introverted and therefore unlikable and emotionally cut off for me to become at all invested in him as a character. Norton is so much more relatable and sympathetic that I usually give the nudge in Letterier's favor because of this, even though Norton is heavily responsible for this seeing as how he pretty much wrote the screenplay (and horribly went on to be uncredited).

 

[Grant]

I liked both movies; overall, I think Lee's was better. They both had strenghts and weaknesses.

I loved Lee's interesting directing style, the seriousness he gave things, and the way he handled General Ross.

In Leterrier's, I think Bruce and Betty are both a lot more empathetic (Bana and Connelly are overall better actors, but Norton and Tyler seem more suited to this sort of role), and the fight scenes are better (if David Banner had become the Abomination instead of the Absorbing Man at the end of the first one, it would have made for a better climax). But, while the fight scenes are better, the actual villains in Leterrier's are nowhere near as interesting; Roth phones it in, and this version of General Ross has everything that was interesting in the 2003 version sucked out of him (not once, for example, do you get the sense he cares at all about Betty).

I agree that General Ross and Betty were a lot more interesting in Lee's version. One of Lee's themes was about dominant parents and the damage they do to their kids, making more introverted and somewhat internally tortured offspring. Leterrier's version had none of that pathos. It was much more a straightforward, "chase" movie in the vein of the TV show while Lee's film was far more cerebral and complex (and some might complain convoluted). I can appreciate both movies for these differences but my biggest gripe with Lee's version is his depiction of Banner. He's too introverted and therefore unlikable and emotionally cut off for me to become at all invested in him as a character. Norton is so much more relatable and sympathetic that I usually give the nudge in Letterier's favor because of this, even though Norton is heavily responsible for this seeing as how he pretty much wrote the screenplay (and horribly went on to be uncredited).

Neither is the 'perfect movie' that was out there to be made.
you make good points about Bana vs Norton.
Banner is the lynchpin of a Hulk movie and Lee blew it.
He is a cypher---no personality at all. Just an introverted guy----as you state.
Norton made the character likeable and someone you could root for.
Was Elliott better than Hurt? Perhaps, but the movie doesn't make or break on that point.

But, i'm pretty sure the consensus now is that Lee's version was misguided in forcing the abusive parent theme into a summer popcorn super-hero flick. Especially as much of it as they did.

Better movie on an intellectual/writing/pschological basis---maybe it's Lee's.

Better franchise super-hero action movie that will get sequels and make money for the studio---hand's down the Lettier version.

I know the second one didn't make a lot more money than the first, but there is no doubt the first one hurt business for the second. I spoke to many people who didn't see the second, the reason? "Hated the first!"

Not everybody got the point it was a re-boot.

 

[CaptainCanada]

But, i'm pretty sure the consensus now is that Lee's version was misguided in forcing the abusive parent theme into a summer popcorn super-hero flick. Especially as much of it as they did.

That's from the comics (though he wasn't a supervillain there). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that being included; they just didn't make Banner relatable enough, and the climax is too obscure.

 

[Grant]

^^^

It's from the comics----35 years after the comic first came out.

If a comic remains in production for decades, they are going to have to change things up many, many times. The whole abusive parent was a version decades after the original 'Hulk vs army' early theme.

One writers 14th take on the character doesn't make it 'from the comics'

It's something a writer added years and years later to shake up a stale formula or just do something new in the title. The 'Hulk hounded by the military' theme is not 'stupid' or 'banal' or 'unintelligent'

It's a perfectly fine theme for a first movie in a franchise and it no doubt would have done better had they gone that route the first time out.

 

[JacksonArcher]

Well, Banner was pretty much hounded by the military in Hulk. Ross and Talbot were out to capture him, albeit for two very different purposes (Ross thought he was dangerous; Talbot wanted to harness his gamma radiation). It just wasn't a straight up chase movie like The Incredible Hulk.

 

[CaptainCanada]

^^^

It's from the comics----35 years after the comic first came out.

If a comic remains in production for decades, they are going to have to change things up many, many times. The whole abusive parent was a version decades after the original 'Hulk vs army' early theme.

One writers 14th take on the character doesn't make it 'from the comics'

It's something a writer added years and years later to shake up a stale formula or just do something new in the title. The 'Hulk hounded by the military' theme is not 'stupid' or 'banal' or 'unintelligent'

It's a perfectly fine theme for a first movie in a franchise and it no doubt would have done better had they gone that route the first time out.

It was 25-ish (mid 80s), but, anyway, all adaptations take into account the whole body of work, not just the earliest versions; the recent Batman series is lifted mostly from a clutch of important works done in the '80s. That was when they set about giving the whole Hulk concept some complexity.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

It was 25-ish (mid 80s), but, anyway, all adaptations take into account the whole body of work, not just the earliest versions; the recent Batman series is lifted mostly from a clutch of important works done in the '80s. That was when they set about giving the whole Hulk concept some complexity.

Well said! If movies didn't take from the more recent bodies of work, Superman would be a thug in no costume, Batman would be a purple-gloved murdere wielding a gun as part of his normal attire, and the X-Men movies line-up would have been QUITE different. And, sorry to say, the box office wouldn't have been quite as good without Wolverine as much as many complain about his overexposure. (I could be wrong, but it's a safe estimate, one that at least seemed to have brought in all the ladies to the theatre)

Ang Lee himself said the script wasn't clicking until he read the issues (and there's been well over a decade mining the idea) involving Banner's father. Then things clicked, they came up with the script and the studio said "go". So the studio was obviously behind a movie not catering to people only familiar with knowledge of the early stuff, as was the team creating the movie. Mistake or not, that's what happened.

And for a fun read, there's this take on the Ang Lee movie. I'm not quite THIS passionate about it, but it still made me chuckle:
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/63163/why_ang_lees_hulk_rules.html

 

[Grant]

^^^

And all that blah, blah, blah somehow makes Ang Lee's version better?
Because they used elements from later version?

No he was the wrong director for the job and he took a very specific plot-line from a speciific run and it was totally inappropriate from the summer action flick people wanted and expected.

If was a flop and it dropped like a rock after it's first 10 days and word got out.
All this obvious nonsense about how the movie-makers should take elements from various versions is beside the point.

He took the WRONG 'updated' plot element and used that in his movie.

Having the Hulk stop in the desert and stare at mold on a stone in the final act of a movie that the studio bankrolled with $150 million is pretentious nonsense--not intelligence.