PunBB

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cinematical.com/2007/04/15/breaking-edward-norton-is-the-incredible-hulk/">http://www.cinematical.com/2007/04/15/b ... ible-hulk/</a><!-- m -->

as a Hulk geek, I'm stoked!

I heard about this the other day...But, why would they make it again after the one they made 4 years ago flopped big time? Ed Norton is a good actor though, hopefully its not the exact same story as the one from 4 years ago.

emperor penguin Wrote:I heard about this the other day...But, why would they make it again after the one they made 4 years ago flopped big time? Ed Norton is a good actor though, hopefully its not the exact same story as the one from 4 years ago.

it's funny that it's considered a flop when it makes over sixty million in its first week, and made the company quite a bit of money..the problem with the first movie, was that it was marketed all wrong

The problem with the first movie was it sucked.

NegPhil Wrote:The problem with the first movie was it sucked.

:lol: :lol: Yup, that was the problem.

Like it says in the article, "I just don't understand why there's so much hate for Lee's rendition of The Hulk." I think it does boil down to marketing and public opinion based on reviews.

I'm excited to see another Hulk film, but I don't believe it can match the 2003 version. Thanx for the heads-up, Ope.

Corby Wrote:Like it says in the article, "I just don't understand why there's so much hate for Lee's rendition of The Hulk." I think it does boil down to marketing and public opinion based on reviews.

I'm excited to see another Hulk film, but I don't believe it can match the 2003 version. Thanx for the heads-up, Ope.

i thought it captured the mood of the comic brilliantly..the hulk isn't a "super-hero", and that's how it was marketed...glad to see at least somebody else likes it!!!

NegPhil Wrote:The problem with the first movie was it sucked.

valid!


Though to be fair the story wasn't bad the actors were generally good (they should have done more with Josh Lucas I think and I was sad to see Eric Bana replaced), but Ang Lee was a poor choice to head up the film as he tried to make his mark on the whole "comic book movie" genre without trying to play within the genres confines (except for the annoying way of cutting between scenes that got very boring after scene three). Also, the Hulk looked awful!

From what I gather the new film will have a Fugitive type of tone which should be excellent!

MattyM Wrote:Though to be fair the story wasn't bad the actors were generally good (they should have done more with Josh Lucas I think and I was sad to see Eric Bana replaced), but Ang Lee was a poor choice to head up the film as he tried to make his mark on the whole "comic book movie" genre without trying to play within the genres confines (except for the annoying way of cutting between scenes that got very boring after scene three). Also, the Hulk looked awful!

First off, the hulk looked spectacular. I work in the CG/Visual Effects industry and the effects in Hulk were landmarks(in 02/03), and it pioneered a few new technologies. Also, I thought Hulk emoted perfectly, just as in the comics. Dead-on, in my opinion.

I agree, the story was fairly good, and the actors were, for the most part, very fitting. Ang Lee wasn't the right or wrong choice for directing, I think he approached it as most directors would. The stylization of the film, ie. incorporating comic frames into the editing, was very unique, and I think if that failed in the film it was because it was used sparsely or irregularily. I think Lee probably was worried about over-doing it and may have under-done it instead.

Since it has baffled me why this film has received such mixed responses, love-or-hate, I don't know how to comment on it's effect on the viewer. I love it and I think I'm going to pop in the DVD this evening.

As far as the new flick goes, I can't wait to see it. It's going to be worlds apart from Lee's, and I always love to see fresh takes on an idea. I never would have pictured Norton as Banner, so I'm even more interested to see it.

I must disagree. The story was convoluted and the casting sucked. The picture was so awful that after test screening it they had to go back and film all the stupid dog scenes. The action was seldom and Bruce Banner was totally unlikeable. The plot line with the father was unnecessary and completely cheesy. Lee is a good director but he over though The Hulk. He should of left the arty farty stuff on Broke Back Mountain. It is really quite simple. Doc. Bruce Banner. Overload of gamma rays and turns into the Hulk. Hulk smash! The morality play about the duality of human nature is best addressed simply.

NegPhil Wrote:I must disagree. The story was convoluted and the casting sucked. The picture was so awful that after test screening it they had to go back and film all the stupid dog scenes. The action was seldom and Bruce Banner was totally unlikeable. The plot line with the father was unnecessary and completely cheesy. Lee is a good director but he over though The Hulk. He should of left the arty farty stuff on Broke Back Mountain. It is really quite simple. Doc. Bruce Banner. Overload of gamma rays and turns into the Hulk. Hulk smash! The morality play about the duality of human nature is best addressed simply.

you've never read the comics have you..the morality play is what the comics are all about

I have read the comics. The Hulk comics manage tell griping stories without burdening the plot. Lee's attempt to explore the generational effects of child abuse was interesting but drove the story away from the Hulk and made it about his father. I understand the attempt to explain the complex psychological background of Bruce Banner but lee failed. The viewer never got a chance to developed sympathy for Bruce. Dr. Banner became a victim of his father not a result of his own relentless pursuit of knowledge. Banner is a smart, honest and vulnerable man of science. The Hulk is everything Bruce is not. How were we supposed to relate with a six foot chiseled featured male model with an Australian accent? Where was his weakness? The film belongs in the same category as CATWOMAN, DAREDEVIL and GHOST RIDDER. Failures. :mrgreen:

Corby, I'm not talking about the work done on animating the Hulk, I agree that it was excellently done and looking at both stills and moving footage it was incorporated into the film much better than (for example) Spiderman was in either of the films so far released, with much more natural movement.

I'm talking about the design of the character, the style of it (I have no idea who the artist was who designed the Hulk for the film). In the comics the tiny-head-on-huge-body idea works a treat, in the film it just didn't look right.

As for Ang Lee, we'll have to agree to disagree (incidentally, I like him aa a director). As this thread marked the first time I've properly considered the film since just after seeing it at the cinema, I've been devoting a lot of thought to it, and I have to say that I gues the thing that annoyed me about it was the thing that I was most looking forward to... that it was a big leap away from the osource material, a larger leap than any of the other Marvel adaptations dared to take.

MattyM Wrote:I'm talking about the design of the character, the style of it (I have no idea who the artist was who designed the Hulk for the film). In the comics the tiny-head-on-huge-body idea works a treat, in the film it just didn't look right.

You make a valid point. I guess maybe it just works for me, personally. I probably would have come up with a similar design, myself. I think this design allows you to connect a bit more with the monster.

MattyM Wrote:As for Ang Lee, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Lol, that's fine. Like I said, I don't think the film would have changed dramatically with another director. With some different writers, yes. After watching it again last night, I believe the source of "not liking" this film comes from the pacing. The story is segmented, almost episodic, which goes away from the traditional arc of a movie. My guess is that you have to have a genuine interest in the story for it to work. I liked the story, so I liked it. Others who didn't seem to like it, didn't care for the plot, it seems.

I liked the comics the most, myself. When I see a movie, I'd like it to be different than the source material, or I'd just read the source material. I think It must all come down to preference, not the merits of the film. I was having a similar conversation with a friend about Hostel; there is a lot of hate for that movie, also. It all stemmed from the content. The disturbing nature of the story seems to muddy people's judgement of the film. When you break it down, it is a spot-on film, playing with viewer expectations, but most people are distracted for, what I call, a personal distaste for the nature of the story.

One thing I forgot about Hulk though, was the fantastic soundtrack provided by one of my favorite film composers, Danny Elfman.

now on that we can agree... the soundtrack (as always with Elfman) was ace!