Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 17:19:24 GMT
So you and you're friends have an incredibly low attention span and just want unrealistic mindless action with little story or character development. I understand. No it was just a really boring and crappy movie. It always has been. I don't think a dumb Dragon Ball Z fanboy has any place to talk to me about what is and isn't "boring" and "crappy."
|
|
Jan El Señor
Junior Member
I love everyone.
@janelsenor
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 1,247
|
Post by Jan El Señor on Sept 9, 2019 17:22:42 GMT
No it was just a really boring and crappy movie. It always has been. I don't think a dumb Dragon Ball Z fanboy has any place to talk to me about what is and isn't "boring" and "crappy." You're taking this a little too seriously. It's just a comic book movie....
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Sept 9, 2019 17:49:29 GMT
I thought the kids were supposed to be back in school this time of year...
|
|
Jan El Señor
Junior Member
I love everyone.
@janelsenor
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 1,247
|
Post by Jan El Señor on Sept 9, 2019 17:58:41 GMT
I will say this for Hulk, this teaser freaking rocked back in the day. Little did I know the disappointment I'd experience when I actually saw the film....
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Sept 9, 2019 18:04:21 GMT
I don't think a dumb Dragon Ball Z fanboy has any place to talk to me about what is and isn't "boring" and "crappy." Suppress your hurt.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 9, 2019 19:01:09 GMT
I always thought he looked like a cross between Jose Canseco and Shrek. I think this is BY FAR the most idiotic and most nonsensical criticism I have ever personally read of Eric Bana's Hulk. Which one of you idiots created a 2nd account? Got the boot from this place already?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 9, 2019 19:03:57 GMT
I thought the kids were supposed to be back in school this time of year... Oh, they're not kids. At least physically. Mentally is up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Sept 9, 2019 19:10:27 GMT
Is this a new member or another sock puppet?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Sept 9, 2019 19:13:37 GMT
Is this a new member or another sock puppet? Specifically? No idea. But it's obviously a part of the Colden, Raptor, Akbars masturbation circle.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Sept 9, 2019 19:52:45 GMT
Is this a new member or another sock puppet? Couldn't say. Haven't talked with anyone that loves the 2003 movie this much.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 9, 2019 19:56:31 GMT
Ang Lee's Hulk hews more closely to the comic book mythology. Hulk doesn't have a gamma bomb but, the creature is drawn to the site of his creation in the desert. The compulsion to return to his "birthplace" shows his tragic and solitary. The Hulk, more than anything, wants to be left alone. Who knows what TiH's roided up monstrosity wants. No one ever calls out the opening scene where a mild-mannered scientist suddenly becomes a parkour master and evades a spec-ops team. I think they kind of hint at Hulk wanting to be alone in TIH also because he always runs off to be alone once he takes out the threats or annoyances as they maybe, but they could have done a better job showing that I guess, but Hulk in the MCU after than not so much.
Sticking closer to the source material isn't a positive or a negative imo but then if you love the Hulk comics and that stuff then yeah that would be a positive, it's still a subjective rather than objective issue though.
As for Parkour Banner in TIH I don't think him having learned that after what several years being chased fails to make sense, he isn't just a mild mannered scientist, he's a gamma fuelled time bomb of rage running for years from the US government makes sense he'd try to learn how to scarper effectively, especially in a place he has been at for some time.
My issue is how does he learn to do that? like too much excitement and adrenaline can set Hulk off right also not just anger, so how did he effectively learn to parkour without setting Hulk off several times by failing? kind of the same complaint but not quite.
I'm not necessarily referring to a slavish recreation of the source material when discussing, what I feel, are the many shortcomings of TiH. 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.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 9, 2019 20:20:10 GMT
I think they kind of hint at Hulk wanting to be alone in TIH also because he always runs off to be alone once he takes out the threats or annoyances as they maybe, but they could have done a better job showing that I guess, but Hulk in the MCU after than not so much.
Sticking closer to the source material isn't a positive or a negative imo but then if you love the Hulk comics and that stuff then yeah that would be a positive, it's still a subjective rather than objective issue though.
As for Parkour Banner in TIH I don't think him having learned that after what several years being chased fails to make sense, he isn't just a mild mannered scientist, he's a gamma fuelled time bomb of rage running for years from the US government makes sense he'd try to learn how to scarper effectively, especially in a place he has been at for some time.
My issue is how does he learn to do that? like too much excitement and adrenaline can set Hulk off right also not just anger, so how did he effectively learn to parkour without setting Hulk off several times by failing? kind of the same complaint but not quite.
I'm not necessarily referring to a slavish recreation of the source material when discussing, what I feel, are the many shortcomings of TiH. 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
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 20:31:44 GMT
Having seen it only recently for the first time, I liked it. It got the job done.
My single favorite thing about it was the part where Hulk fought off the dog creatures with Betty Ross there. He had a moment of standing in front of her when the coast was clear, in awe. I liked that. Simple though it seems, high IQ super genius Banner has to be stripped of all his brain power to appreciate Betty. Not love, appreciate. There's a difference because you can love someone without appreciating them, as Bruce clearly does. But Hulk appreciates Betty. I thought it was a sweet touch.
Plus I have a thing for Jennifer Connolly's face. I've thought she was beautiful for long as I can remember.
I also liked the general desert setting where Hulk could wile out and throw tanks with his proximity to the nearest city act as a countdown with tension. Nick Nolte's also terrific.
|
|
Jan El Señor
Junior Member
I love everyone.
@janelsenor
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 1,247
|
Post by Jan El Señor on Sept 9, 2019 20:33:37 GMT
I'm not necessarily referring to a slavish recreation of the source material when discussing, what I feel, are the many shortcomings of TiH. 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. Now this is a well-thought post. Much better than "You have a short attention span, you peepee-head!" Lol. While I'll concede Hulk 2003 did try to tackle more complex issues, I feel TiH succeeded more at what it attempted to be. It may have just been like an episode of the TV series, but it didn't really pretend to be anything else. It did what it did well, even if you don't like that particular direction.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 9, 2019 21:05:17 GMT
I'm not necessarily referring to a slavish recreation of the source material when discussing, what I feel, are the many shortcomings of TiH. 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
And that is fair enough as well. 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.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 9, 2019 21:07:11 GMT
I'm not necessarily referring to a slavish recreation of the source material when discussing, what I feel, are the many shortcomings of TiH. 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. Now this is a well-thought post. Much better than "You have a short attention span, you peepee-head!" Lol. While I'll concede Hulk 2003 did try to tackle more complex issues, I feel TiH succeeded more at what it attempted to be. It may have just been like an episode of the TV series, but it didn't really pretend to be anything else. It did what it did well, even if you don't like that particular direction. I can certainly understand and respect that point of view if I can't exactly agree with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 21:10:35 GMT
Is this a new member or another sock puppet? Specifically? No idea. But it's obviously a part of the Colden, Raptor, Akbars masturbation circle. Calamariphobe
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 9, 2019 21:16:28 GMT
Having seen it only recently for the first time, I liked it. It got the job done.
My single favorite thing about it was the part where Hulk fought off the dog creatures with Betty Ross there. He had a moment of standing in front of her when the coast was clear, in awe. I liked that. Simple though it seems, high IQ super genius Banner has to be stripped of all his brain power to appreciate Betty. Not love, appreciate. There's a difference because you can love someone without appreciating them, as Bruce clearly does. But Hulk appreciates Betty. I thought it was a sweet touch.
Plus I have a thing for Jennifer Connolly's face. I've thought she was beautiful for long as I can remember.
I also liked the general desert setting where Hulk could wile out and throw tanks with his proximity to the nearest city act as a countdown with tension. Nick Nolte's also terrific.
The desert settings is a big reason I am a fan of Hulk. The expansive landscape is more cinematic to me. The settings are a good match for the creature's personality. Also, the military tactics used to direct the creature's movements or possibly contain him are far more plausible and coordinated than in TiH.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 21:30:39 GMT
Having seen it only recently for the first time, I liked it. It got the job done.
My single favorite thing about it was the part where Hulk fought off the dog creatures with Betty Ross there. He had a moment of standing in front of her when the coast was clear, in awe. I liked that. Simple though it seems, high IQ super genius Banner has to be stripped of all his brain power to appreciate Betty. Not love, appreciate. There's a difference because you can love someone without appreciating them, as Bruce clearly does. But Hulk appreciates Betty. I thought it was a sweet touch.
Plus I have a thing for Jennifer Connolly's face. I've thought she was beautiful for long as I can remember.
I also liked the general desert setting where Hulk could wile out and throw tanks with his proximity to the nearest city act as a countdown with tension. Nick Nolte's also terrific.
The desert settings is a big reason I am a fan of Hulk. The expansive landscape is more cinematic to me. The settings are a good match for the creature's personality. Also, the military tactics used to direct the creature's movements or possibly contain him are far more plausible and coordinated than in TiH. Right away the desert reminded me of the animated series.
I like the desert too. It's a perfect backdrop for him.
I didn't really like The Incredible Hulk movie that came later. I like Edward Norton but I didn't think he was a good fit. It's probably a little better than I remember, but Norton throws so much shade at the production I can't deal with it knowing he's so sour.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Sept 9, 2019 21:41:14 GMT
The desert settings is a big reason I am a fan of Hulk. The expansive landscape is more cinematic to me. The settings are a good match for the creature's personality. Also, the military tactics used to direct the creature's movements or possibly contain him are far more plausible and coordinated than in TiH. Right away the desert reminded me of the animated series.
I like the desert too. It's a perfect backdrop for him.
I didn't really like The Incredible Hulk movie that came later. I like Edward Norton but I didn't think he was a good fit. It's probably a little better than I remember, but Norton throws so much shade at the production I can't deal with it knowing he's so sour.
Norton ironically never gets angry in a convincing way throughout TiH. In order to cover up his shortcomings as an actor, he changes the Hulk's trigger from anger to pain and or increased adrenaline.
|
|