"You're making me angry." - The Incredible Hulk Movies Thread ***Spoilers***

Well they borrowed from Ultimate as is, so it might not be out of place for Hulk to kill. Regardless the conclusion to the fight was unsatisfactory.

" And, as I said, I think that the desert fight scene in Hulk is more exciting than anything in The Incredible Hulk. "

Yeah cuz watching a 40 ft tall Hulk leap from mountain to mountain is awesomely exciting. Where is all this depth you peeps keep talkin' about within Ang Lee's version? I must be missing it. Boring doesn't = thoughtful and intelligent. I don't feel that Lee gave us any more insight into the characters that we got in this one. I certainly had more fun watching it than Lee's. And you talk of mindless action... What about the Giant Dog fight scene in the first one? That was pretty mindless and pointless. "Hey, let's throw in some giant CG Dogs because we didn't bother to come up with any interesting or meaningful reasons for Bruce to become the Hulk."

If nothing else, this version of the Hulk paid attention to detail. Like the fact that Bruce wears over-sized pants so when he becomes the Hulk, he's not caught with his pants down. Where as in Lee's version, where the Hulk grows way too big, still seems to have pants that fit. They must've been the Levi's ultra loose fitting.

In my opinion (and try and remember that it's opinion, not religion) I thought This Hulk kicked the **** outta the other one.

D_M_S_L

Clearly you are missing it because it was fairly evident throughout the film.

The point was that the father wanted to unleash the beast inside Banner and have his son embrace what he thought he could be...a being so physically perfect that it exemplified the peak of human evolution. But Banner refused to embrace the monster and wouldn't let it out so the father forced his hand and force him to unleash his anger when Betty is put at great risk. You're right...completely meaningless and uninteresting. Who wants to see the complex relationship of a father and son driven to its brink by the father's obsession with his work to understand human evolution.

Thats not attention to detail, thats called a fan service. Its cute in small doses and makes for a great inside joke, but Comic Book movies have become overwrought with them to the point where they get in the way of story (Spider-Man 3 and X-Men the Last Stand come to mind).

Indeed that is your opinion and you are more than entitled to it...just as we are entitled to ours and I disagree entirely with your assessment of which was the better film.

I think they're both strong in their own ways. HULK was a thoughtful, character-driven father-son drama punctuated with eye-popping action scenes. TIH is a crowd-pleasing action movie punctuated with sparse, but pointed, character development.

I think Spiderfan was right when he said that it is difficult to compare the two movies. The 2003 Hulk has a great atmosphere and ambition, but has a number of problems, while 2008's Incredible Hulk is a more even but less ambitious film, with the accent on action. I actually think it is cool that Marvel got two such different films out of the same property.

I think that the last scene with Banner in the recent Incredible Hulk promises yet a different slant on things, should they get the green light for a sequel.

Or quite possibly what is to come for the Avengers movie as well (a Hulk that Banner is able to control for a time).

Or it could be seen as the Hulk becoming a villain of some sort for the Avengers

That would be what I was indicating with "for a time."

Given the drop-off in ticket sales from weekend one to weekend two (61 - 69%, depending which source you cite), it's doubtful there will be another solo outing for the Hulk. But that's just as well, IMO, since we've had two excellent Hulk films with varying styles and viewpoints, and whatever happens he's a certain element in the Avengers movie.

Ticket sales won't necesarily determine whether or not there will be a sequel. In fact unless this thing suddenly stops making any money at all (including DVD and TV sales) than I would be thoroughly surprised if we didn't see another Hulk story beyond The Avengers movies.

I think you're conflating me with someone else. I didn't talk about depth. I didn't talk about insight. I talked about one particular action scene, which for me worked better than the action scenes in the other film. I deliberately didn't mention the Hulk dog scene, which I thought was pretty terrible (although it was funny that of all the fights Hulk got into in both pictures, the dog fight was the only one where he actually lost his pants).

I sincerely hope you guys are right! I loved this new movie, and I think it more than merits a series of its own.

Yeah cuz watching a 40 ft tall Hulk leap from mountain to mountain is awesomely exciting. Where is all this depth you peeps keep talkin' about within Ang Lee's version? I must be missing it. Boring doesn't = thoughtful and intelligent. I don't feel that Lee gave us any more insight into the characters that we got in this one. I certainly had more fun watching it than Lee's.

Clearly...

And you talk of mindless action... What about the Giant Dog fight scene in the first one? That was pretty mindless and pointless. "Hey, let's throw in some giant CG Dogs because we didn't bother to come up with any interesting or meaningful reasons for Bruce to become the Hulk."

Actually, Yes, it was completely uninteresting. I really never have been so bored at the movies in my entire life. If it would've been presented in a way that flowed better and developed the characters a bit more then it may have worked for me, but as it is, it doesn't. And you're right, it was absolutely necessary for there to be a 20ft poodle.


If nothing else, this version of the Hulk paid attention to detail. Like the fact that Bruce wears over-sized pants so when he becomes the Hulk, he's not caught with his pants down. Where as in Lee's version, where the Hulk grows way too big, still seems to have pants that fit. They must've been the Levi's ultra loose fitting.

Oh it is, is it. No it's called paying attention to continuity. I know it's a hard concept to grasp in this day and age where it's rarely thought of, but back in the time before Hollywood just rushed every POS off the assembly line and into the theaters, there were people who actually used to care about crap like that. And isn't so sheik to trash Spidey 3 and X3, yet I know nothing of your meaning. You'll have to do better than name drop here.

In my opinion (and try and remember that it's opinion, not religion) I thought This Hulk kicked the **** outta the other one.

We? This isn't an attack on you and your assembled cult of Ang Lee Hulk fans. I merely pointed out a flaw in the argument quoted. Geeze, sometimes people on here scare me...

D_M_S_L

I'm sorry, but I really don't accept that argument, because of its natural conclusion.

Are you saying that the movie wouldn't have been successful if it had had the minor changes that would have recognized the previous film? None of that would have made any substantive changes to what most people have raved about in this film (specifically the action sequences and the faster pace). It would still have been just as good of a popcorn movie.

Over the weekend, I realized what it is that bugged me about the "reboot" of the Hulk. The Incredible Hulk was still designed as a sequel. The "reboot" portion of it almost completely consisted of the opening credits (where they do a recap of the origin story) and one conversation later in the film (Gen. Ross explaining about Banner's background). That's really not much of a reboot.

I mean, think of it. Spider-Man 2 had a recap of the origin story told in its opening credits as well. Imagine if they had decided to go with an alternate origin story between the movies instead, but left almost everything else (except for a few mentions by Harry about his father) alone. It would cause a subtle, but fundamental shift in the feel of the movie, and would weaken it by removing much of the character development that had happened in the first film.

Similarly, The Incredible Hulk suffers because of that disconnect. The script was originally written as a loosely-detached sequel, not as a reboot. Norton rewrote it to serve as a reboot, but he didn't remove the sequel feel from it. (In fact, through all of the promotional materials I still didn't learn that it was released as an actual reboot until after I saw the movie and was discussing it with a friend.)

When other franchises have rebooted, they have started at the origin, simply so that they could have a full, clean slate. Batman did that with Batman Begins. Star Trek is doing that with the upcoming movie. We've seen something similar with everything from Battlestar Galactica, to Bionic Woman. The only (possible) exception to that would be Superman Returns but that wasn't exactly a reboot, but more of a continuation of the previous series (as it explicitly acknowledged the previous two movies - 3 and 4 never existed ).

Because of that, Incredible Hulk was a far weaker film that it could have been.

Kimball Kinnison

Funny thing about the movie is that no one forced you to watch it so I don't know why you are acting as though the film was a disservice to you. I am perplexed however that you feel the characters of Incredible Hulk were more developed than Hulk, but to each their own. I didn't call the dog fight nor the dogs necesary, the context of why they are attacking is what makes the scene at all compelling. Truth be told its not my favourite scene in the film, but you are the one nitpicking it, so I explained why it exists...to further the drama between father and son. But since you are not interested in that storyline its clearly a wasted effort... C'est La Vie.

There is a level of difference between making occasional nods to something in the comics and stuffing your film so full of those moments that it interferes with the flow of the story. They are cool moments granted, but should never be given priority over story...ever. X-Men the Last Stand on many occasions detoured around story for those little fan moments and while they are cool they have little replay value and diminish story time. Furthermore the abundance of them in X-Men the Last Stand was beyond ridiculous. The film became more of a two hour trailer of cool fan moments that seemed to be taken from a wiki article not through attention to detail. Neither of Singer's takes on X-Men needed nearly that many and while fans complained about the lack of sentinels, danger room or Ice Man icing up, the stories still have tremendous replay value...you watch them for the story. After a certain point they may even start to become cheesy and groan inducing...possibly ridiculous if added too often.

I love detail and as I said in small doses its great...but there is an obsession with trying to put as many in as possible and they begin to lose their subtlety. Now granted Incredible Hulk manages to walk the line in this instance and not go overboard...but it was pushing it after a while.

As for the sheik comment, I am not now nor have I ever been a band-waggon-sitter who chooses to bash a film because everyone else does. If you care to look (though I know you really don't) I have on a variety of occasions clearly outlined my feelings pertaining to both films all over these board

Kimball_Kinnison, I feel the same way about Superman Returns. I think The Incredible Hulk's half-hearted reboot is forgivable given that not many people would be willing to sit through a new origin story so soon after 2003's Hulk, though. Making the new origin a quick recap didn't help the emotional connection with the audience, but I didn't think it was so bad. Certainly I had far more probems with Superman Returns' sequel/reboot status.

I'm not going to waste time with the quote thing, it just takes too much time, and I've got better things to do. I agree with you that X-men: The last Stand was really bad in it's delivery of the material, compliments of Bret Ratner. And Spidey 3 destroyed Venom because what's-his-face needed more face time on screen. But you're comparing apple and bananas. Continuity and flat-out disregard for story and plot are complete opposites. I've been a huge fan of Both the X-men and Spidey comics for a while and honestly I didn't see either of those flicks to hold any nods to fans. X-3 was just all about more mutants with stupid tattoos all over their faces and an attitude of kill off all the X-men. And Spidey 3 would've been fine if they hadn't tried to juggle three sub-plots and reuse the same tired "uh oh MJ's in trouble" shtick.

I just happen to be of the school of thought that detail is what sets a story firmly in reality. When you allow your audience to understand why something is the way it is within the world you're trying to create, you can get a much better response. Movies used to be like that.

You're right, no one forced me to watch it, I went and saw it of my own free will. And I'm not nit-picking, I'm simply expressing what I didn't enjoy about the Hulk. See it's these kinds of responses that make me afraid for some of you. It's like, because I said I had a problem with the flick and you get all defensive as if you are somehow affected by my opinion of a silly movie. That's what's scary, because you're not the only one. That's why I felt it necessary to not that it was just my opinion, because for many, it is a religion and they're ready to fight wars over their belief in a movie. It happens far too often on these boards.

The term cult doesn't just refer to groups of freaks who drink poisoned kool-aid to catch the space ship behind the comet. Surely you've heard of a "Cult Film", it's a flick that has a small, but loyal following. This is how I was presenting the term.

D_M_S_L

Hence why I think it would have been a stronger film if they had left it as a sequel. In fact, it really baffles me why they didn't.

Because of how closely it's related to the last Hulk film (in terms of real-world time), and how it was originally designed as a sequel, there's almost no way that they could have effectively rebooted it without running into these sort of problems. If they had left it as a sequel, it would have better drawn in the fans of the previous one (and contrary to popular opinion, we do exists - as has been seen in this thread), and I doubt that there would have been all that many complaints about acknowledging it. Instead, most comments would focus on how much they improved over the previous film. After all, aren't we seeing those comments anyways?

They had nothing to lose by keeping it a sequel instead of a reboot, and everything to gain.

Kimball Kinnison

-Danger Room
-Moira McTaggert
-Sentinels
-Beast
-Angel
-Fastball Special (x2)
-Psylocke (who is a paper thin facsimile of her comic book counterpart)
-Morlocks (the dudes with tattoos on their face)
-Iceman Icing up
-Xavier's Twin (though to be fair this was only vaguely addressed and near the end of the film)
-Multiple Man
-Juggernaut

And thats just off the top of my head. Several elements were necessary to tell the story, but many just felt crammed in there. Angel could have been any character and beyond being the poster boy for the cure he was unnecessary so whats the point of him showing up in the mansion and later in the battle when he doesn't do anything. Several characters get utterly diminished screen time, others have almost no character development, some you can't even tell who they are unless you consult an outside resource. There is simply too much there...too many moments and nods that didn't need to be there. They just took up time that could have been better spent on story.

You said it yourself that Spider-Man 3 was juggling too many story lines at once...thats precisely what I am alluding to. Venom was unnecessary and could have waited for another film. Sandman's story could virtually be removed entirely for any faceless thug and the arc about Peter forgiving Flint was so lack-luster its almost groan worthy. Stuff like this is fan service that is cute in small doses but in this abundance becomes cumbersome and unnecessary. As I said Hulk treads a fine line and thats alright...but its stuff like that that is beginning to cause problems for certain franchises.

I don't see how this has anything to do with your argument.

Again I have no problem with you expressing an opinion nor it differing from mine. If I didn't enjoy discussing different view points I wouldn't be carrying on this conversation. However its not the fact you expressed your opinion but the manner in which you chose to express it that makes me "defencive." Not only is it aggressive and terribly condescending but in many instances sounds more like you are stating fact rather than opinion. Many of the opinions you express, its as though they are the only possib

Well, one example of such a shift would be the Star Trek films. Look at the massive changes between I and II. And those were closer in time than the two Hulk films.

I'm not saying that it made TIH a bad movie. Far from it. I quite enjoyed it.

All I am saying is that it could have been a much stronger movie than it was. It could have been better. Right now, I'd rate TIH as being about a 7 or an 8 (definitely not a bad showing). If they had kept the ties to the old one, it probably would have been a 9 or a 10.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT: I'm not sure I'd accept the legal theory, though, because they were originally planning for it to be a sequel until Norton himself asked to rewrite it (at least according to several articles I've read). If there were such potential legal problems with a sequel, they wouldn't have goten to the point of casting the movie before resolving them.