Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 9, 2019 21:05:17 GMT
I use the term mythology to describe specific thematic landmarks and character traits we've come to know and appreciate about the characters.
The Hulk's birth is a traumatic event which he tries to make sense of with his limited intellect. All he can do is return to the site of the blast looking for answers that aren't there. That's fucking sad, man. In the Hulk mythology, there is a bomb and a runaway teenager. Both films jettison Rick Jones (needlessly), but Hulk 2003 at least acknowledges the bomb metaphorically. When I say "mythology," I'm referring to key supporting characters, events, landmarks and themes that define the character. It doesn't have to be a panel for panel recreation, but there are key elements that should be included.
Bruce Banner became the Hulk because he was trying to save someone else. Hulk 2003 uses an anonymous proxy in that capacity. The character, whose name I've forgotten assuming it was ever mentioned, quickly recedes into the background after the accident. That was a missed opportunity, IMO. Rick's guilt and Banner's heroism are defining aspects of the Hulk's origin.
The Incredible Hulk, as a film, simply has no vision. It has no sense of history or place (in the context of the character). It is superficial in its depiction of the Hulk and his heroics. You could have easily swapped out the villain and hero, and it could have ALMOST been another superhero movie altogether.
Hulk 2003 fails at many things but, at least it tries to get at the psychology of the creature, and the trauma that resulted in its creation. TiH is just one long episode of the 70s TV series.
The parkour thing was just poorly-thought-out filler. It makes zero sense. It would have been more in line with the character if Bruce used guile and not Captain America-level gymnastics to evade the (highly touted) spec-ops team. Seems like Ruffalo didn't inherit any of Norton's dexterity despite them both playing the same character.
I know a lot of people enjoy TiH, and I have nothing against them. I'm also unlikely ever to be one of them. All that film was good for in my mind was MCU worldbuilding (which I feel people mistake for a good Hulk movie). It was serviceable at best.
Fair enough, I do think Ang Lee's was shooting for more than TIH was, and for some they would rather have a failure to be spectacular rather than succeeding to be passable, I would rather see something done well if not all that inspired than the other way around though, a fail whilst trying to be spectacular is still a fail and it stinks as bad as any other pile of crap.
I hadn't actually thought about the TV show similarity for TIH, that's a fair point but I don't think a fair criticism, you know these characters and stories are revamped and retold over and over again, the TV show version is as much a Hulk iteration as any other, and probably the most famous prior to the films so it makes sense I guess they would do that.
Like I said though I agree Ang Lee's tried to do more than TIH did but for me pretty much everything about that movie failed to make an impression, outside of Hulk dogs I don't really recall the movie much like I recall vague bits and pieces but that's it, I can however recall most of TIH, but that's me, I wont begrudge anyone for liking the 2003 version, afterall I like Howard The Duck and I don't care what anyone else thinks about that movie 
I experience the opposite effect from you when considering Hulk and TiH. TiH barely registers for me in terms of memorable performances or moments. William Hurt, a fantastic actor in his own right, is - by far -no Sam Elliot. Liv Tyler's doe-eyed vacancy doesn't match Jennifer Connelley's searching intensity and quiet pensiveness. Eric Bana, while not perfect, conveys a man who is trying to understand and cope with a bizarre disability. Norton is so busy remembering to breathe and looking at his G-Shock wristwatch that he forgot to turn in a performance. I cringe every time I think of him lifting his head and smiling into the camera with CG-ed electric green eyes --- while meditating.
TiH fails in my mind because it was a reaction to Hulk. The fans said, "we don't like the chubby Hulk character design." ILM responded with a design that is negative 30% body fat. Fans said, "we want more smashing and more destruction." TiH was promptly scripted to have the Hulk level an entire city block. Fanboys said, "we don't want any psychobabble or internal reflection from the character." TiH dutifully features none of that. There's nothing wrong with giving fans what they want but, I think TiH should have tried a little harder to be more creative and less generic.
I prefer a film to take significant risks and fail rather than deliver on precisely what I requested. A lot of people claim to feel the same way, but when push comes to shove, they'd prefer a safe success like TiH (as is the majority feeling in this thread). And, people say as much with their wallets on opening night (which is why the MCU proceeds as it does).
I think Norton was so enamored of Bill Bixby's thoughtful and "level" take on "David Banner" that he forgot to open up a Hulk comic book and read it. My guess is he likely considered the TV show superior to the comic book material.