idle one kenobi
Well, I liked both Hulk films for different reasons, but I hated parts of both too, maybe the first hulk more.Why cant they nail the look and design of the Hulk in these films?The first one it just looked horrible, fat faced and not very angry looking.The second film, his overall body structure and those over the top ripples on the muscles looked like Giger had designed it.Yet, I have seen cgi of Hulk on you-tube from a game .... see link...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIRFsx-wXis (copy n paste)Think its from a game? Anyone know which one?And it is perfect! Why dont they just add a bit more real texture and lighting to this model and put it on film? Nortons Banner and the film itself was great i thought. Oh, the design of the villain was bad too.
Sep 29 - 04:23 AM
Glad to hear Norton is not totally pissed with Marvel.
Sep 29 - 05:50 AM
"There are limitless permutations." That's the attitude and perspective I want, as a fan, from people working on these movies. Him and Leterrier, Favreau, these guys definitely have their comic book heads on straight. Leterrier talked at length once about how fundamentally important big balls and hugs guts are prerequisite to making these work. You can't play it safe and follow standard feature formulas. You have to experiment and bend the conventions of the medium to suit the vision. Go tell one of these pulseless suits that and he'll probably spit up his breakfast.
Sep 29 - 06:05 AM
I felt that Incredible Hulk was a little under rated. Sure, it is no where near as good as TDK but it wasn't that bad either. I do prefer it to the other Hulk film.
Sep 29 - 06:09 AM
Kev, I love TDK as much as the next man. In fact, I probably love the mythology far more than the next man. But really, by now, it doesn't really say anything to throw in "it was nowhere near as good as TDK..." I think that's what frustrates the TDK hates the most; all the useless comments we make in regards to it.
Imagine how they must feel when even a diehard Batman and TDK fan is now annoyed by it. lol. ;-)
By the way, guys. Sidebar. Don't you just love the corrosion of Hollywood? Seeing Toy Story and Toy Story 2 on the tomatometer gives me a special warm feeling inside, to see that paying audiences have become so stupid and filmmakers so lazy that, hey, screw remakes and reboots, why not just release the same damn movie again in -gasp!- 3D.
Amazing how the world is ran by fu.cking toddlers in adult disguises.
Sep 29 - 06:20 AM
That also explains the popularity of what could be considered garbage on a normal planet: "Hannah Montana" (starring overacting tween actress with a big ego and a canned personality), "High School Musical" (Disney's further attempt to make sure the average person feels like ****), and "Twilight" (see "High School Musical").I hope Edward Norton gets back for "The Avengers". It wouldn't be the same without him.
Sep 29 - 12:01 PM
I LOVED Norton as the Hulk.
I'll see it if he's in it. :)
Norton ALL THE WAY;
we enjoyed The second Hulk much more than the first.
Sep 29 - 07:05 AM
Green will be the new black.
Sep 29 - 07:09 AM
norton isn't THE HULK, he's bruce banner, thats the problem. thats why some of it was boring. its the incredible hulk...not the incredible bruce banner. more hulk...more smash...more entertaining. both bana and norton were entertaining as banner but the fact that the hulk is in it for maybe 10% of the movie is why it's not that good.
matanuki, don't like the rereleasing of past movies? get used to it. lucas is redoing the star wars movies in 3d.
and again, the reason peeps bring up TDK SOOOOOOO much is because its hands down the best comic book movie. you achieve greatness, thats what it'll be compared to until it's knocked off. same as every good basketball player is compared to MJ, every comic book flick will try to and be compared to...TDK. it has gotten old but, get used to it
Sep 29 - 07:50 AM
"thats why some of it was boring. its the incredible hulk...not the incredible bruce banner. more hulk...more smash...more entertaining. both bana and norton were entertaining as banner but the fact that the hulk is in it for maybe 10% of the movie is why it's not that good."So I'm assuming you never saw a single episode of the Bill Bixby The Incredible Hulk series. Because anyone who saw a single episode of that series could tell you that it proved that Incredible Hulk could be interesting when the title character only appeared for about five minutes and the rest focused on Banner and his troubles.
Sep 29 - 08:27 AM
Old is not the same thing as irrelevant, Gimy. Sometimes it's apples and oranges, even between comic book movies. How, pray tell, is it useful to bring up TDK when the discussion is whether there will be a Hulk 2 and whether Norton will return as Banner?
And since we're getting used to things, Gimy. Perhaps by now you should be getting used to the fact that Banner is just as important if not MORE important than The Hulk in terms of character dynamics. For instance, the details of Bruce Wayne are what make Batman interesting. A giant green man smashing up everything and a dude running around dressed as a bat will only get you so far.
And I bet you this right here, my friend. That path to achieving greatness you mentioned? NO scribe will get there if he or she skimps on the subtext and specifics that make their characters, story, and the world they inhabit unique and special.
It's clear you appreciate greatness, and good-filmmaking. You are applauded for it. But I submit that in light of that, perhaps you should stop acting like a champion for the ethic of poor storytelling.
Sep 29 - 08:39 AM
Gimy you are wrong, Iron Man is hands down the best comic book movie. Batman Begins is better than TDK. So just stop
Sep 29 - 08:09 AM
You see, Gimy. Cutler's comment is a case in point. When we bring up irrelevancies, all sorts of strange ideas start coming out of the woodwork. Iron Man, Batman Begins, and then TDK?.... To each his own.
Sep 29 - 08:41 AM
*@ Cutler to the rescue* (gasp) BLASPHEMY!!!
Sep 29 - 10:08 AM
i hated the first hulk but i rather liked the second one and i definately liked edward norton better as bruce banner.
Sep 29 - 08:23 AM
The first Hulk was so much better than the second. Without a doubt.
Sep 29 - 09:08 AM
Yeah, I might be in the minority here, but I totally prefer the Ang Lee's version of the Hulk. Better performances, better actors, better CG, killer direction. I loved the way every time he cut away from a scene he did it in some comic-book inspired way. The movie is worth watching for those parts alone - Ang Lee is such a talented director.
The second Hulk was a kind of a letdown for me - I wanted it to be more like the original series. I found the action kinda boring, and they just felt like cartoon characters to me.
Plus it had horseface mcgee in it, I mean Liv Tyler. Can people please stop giving her roles? I heard they have to spread peanut butter on her gums to make it look like here lips are moving.
Sep 29 - 11:57 AM
I get so jazzed thinking about what Marvel is trying to do here. I think some people just view The Avengers as another movie without realizing the grandiosity of what is happening. Never before have so many characters, rooted in their own movies, been brought together in one movie. Look how hard it has been to put Batman and Superman into one movie. This just doesn't happen. With people like Favreau, Downey Jr and Norton involved, how can you not at least be a LITTLE excited about the prospects of this turning out great?I love hearing news about this movie. I hope Marvel can get Norton on board, his Incredible Hulk was much better than people give it credit, and the Hulk would be the perfect reason to get all the Avengers together. Sounds like a TON of fun.
Sep 29 - 09:25 AM
bottom line, almost all the parts including banner were boring. i almost fell asleep. i guess i am a tad wrong about the whole being about "the hulk" type of arguement so i'll insult the writing/story as well then because batman/iron man wasn't the SOLE reason it was classic, it was just overall well written/acted/directed.
all i ask when i pay my 5.50 is to be entertained, which is what 90% of people want in a movie. alot of you cats want great story, great acting, great everything. it's not at all a prerequisite to an entertaining movie. it's a bonus. if they continue with the SLOOOOW, uninteresting bruce banner story...it'll never blossom as a franchise and continue to shell out "eh, it was ok" kind of status.
you guys are in the minority bringing up iron man as the best though, i've heard that by only 1 other person. its a great movie but tdk's direction and cinematography, phew off the charts. i'd bring up awards for TDK but thats irrelavent, so i'll go with what seems to be the audience's opinion of which was better and tdk seems to win out.
by the way, nice name but Cutler can't save our bears w/ Lach being out. defense can't tackle worth a shi...and forte apparently caught Cedric Bensonitis
Sep 29 - 09:26 AM
You almost fell a sleep? You must have a short attention-span then.
"all i ask when i pay my 5.50 is to be entertained, which is what 90% of people want in a movie. alot of you cats want great story, great acting, great everything. it's not at all a prerequisite to an entertaining movie. it's a bonus. if they continue with the SLOOOOW, uninteresting bruce banner story...it'll never blossom as a franchise and continue to shell out "eh, it was ok" kind of status."
Wow! this statement shows a lot about your knowledge & understanding of film. First off, films are more then a value of "entertainment". Film is first & foremost a art form which it's foundation is built upon storytelling NOT entertainment value. Storytelling IS the be-all-end-all requirement in film. Entertainment value comes through the story which comes through the 5 pillar configuration which all films follow (or try too). The Bruce Banner story is a development of characteristics meaning the story had some depth & dimension to it (I could get into film elements but I don't want to go down that road). If the film was built just on simply "entertainment" purposes it would just end up as a slate of mindless nonsense with no depth, film elements, dimension & so forth. Do you think "TDK" & "Iron Man" were built on "entertainment value"? I can tell you right now they weren't.
P.S. I really wish people would stop comparing everything to TDK.
Sep 29 - 12:11 PM
ha ha ha....lol....TDK mentioned again.
Sep 29 - 09:35 AM
Nothing against Bana, but I absolutely hated the first one. He still did a fine job though, but I liked Edward Norton better as the character and the second film as a whole.
Sep 29 - 09:49 AM
TDK has plotholes, pointless scenes, and completely unbelievable scenes/parts that nobody ever brings up I find it funny, yet you all act like it is a perfect movie. It is a great movie, but all of you TDK coc.ksuckers ruin it for me.The Incredible Hulk was a movie that I enjoyed a lot, I thought it was very good. Edward Norton was great, and I agree with Gimy that I could go for a little bit more of Hulk Smash! But they did a pretty good job with bringing some elements from the comic books like him yelling Hulk Smash and using the sonic boom by clapping his hands. I would love to see another Hulk with the same people involved from the first one, and would love to see him in the Avengers.
Sep 29 - 10:16 AM
"TDK has plotholes, pointless scenes, and completely unbelievable scenes/parts that nobody ever brings up..."
First, where was the so-called "plot holes" in TDK? So many people bring up the term "plot hole" & I can honestly say 98% of the time what people describe as a so-called "plot hole" isn't either remotely close of being a plot hole or have used the wrong terminology in what they think is a plot hole but technically isn't.
Second off, what where the pointless scenes? Enlighten me.
Third off, what was so completely unbelievable in these so called "scenes/parts"?
If your going to bring this type of stuff up then I suggestion you better have some solidified substance to prove it.
Sep 29 - 11:43 AM
No one cares, but I like Iron Man more the TDK because of Downey Jr. and how much more FUN Iron Man is. Also, Norton was my least favorite part of Hulk.
Sep 29 - 10:32 AM
Gordon Franklin Terry Sr. finally writes something brief, and yet still manages to creep me out.Now that's a debate worth having, which is better, TDK or GFT Sr.?
Sep 29 - 10:45 AM
And as far as TDK goes - the movie was way longer than it needed to be, especially considering it was Heath Ledger's performance that held everything together. The whole scene in China was unnecessary, and there are a lot of parts in the film where it feels like they were just added for padding. Seriously though, where does the Joker find all the time to mastermind these schemes? Through the entire course of the movie everything was plotted by the Joker ahead of time (Stealing the mobs money, Killing Dent, Blowing up the hospital, Blowing up the Ferry, etc).
Plus, it felt like they just shoehorned in Two Faces storyline and totally wasted him. I get it - the Jokers last gag was making Batman break his code and kill Harvey, but that scene didn't have nearly the emotional punch it should have.
Sep 29 - 12:04 PM
I also agree about that scene in China. Although it looked cool and was interesting, it just didn't seem to fit in so nice.
and I haven't seen the first HULK,
but I saw the 2nd, and I liked it quite a bit. I hope Norton returns, and they let him have some input. Whoever wrote some of the lines between Liv Tyler and him did a great job at much needed humor. I also liked their chemistry, and I normally don't like Tyler all that much. . .
Sep 29 - 12:22 PM
"The whole scene in China was unnecessary, and there are a lot of parts in the film where it feels like they were just added for padding."
Actually, the scene in China wasn't unnecessary. What parts were added for padding? "The Dark Knight" was a fully drawn out story. It wasn't a half-baked story that some films try to do then just spoon feed the rest to you.
"where does the Joker find all the time to mastermind these schemes? Through the entire course of the movie everything was plotted by the Joker ahead of time (Stealing the mobs money, Killing Dent, Blowing up the hospital, Blowing up the Ferry, etc)."
Well, there are many ways to go about this. I mean the schemes he came up with weren't all that complex to make happen in a short time. You have to remember from "Batman Begins" to "The Dark Knight" there is some space in between the timelines of the two films of when "Batman Begins" ends & "The Dark Knight" begins. "The Dark Knight" story didn't all happen within just a few days. It was several days if not more. You also have to remember he (Joker) was well connected & had others working for him. When he wasn't around he was planning & setting up. Alot of it is pretty logic if not even just plain common sense.
Sep 29 - 12:30 PM
First of all, the scene in.... JAPAN was not only a very cool scene, but it was relevant to the plot. Which says a lot more than quite a few action scenes finding their way in movies these days.
Usually, I find one's experience with a movie improves if they actually pay attention to what is happening on the screen.
Sep 30 - 06:35 AM
Damnit! It's too early in the morning, and apparently I'm still lost in bizarro dream land. Scratch the Japan comment. In the dream, I wanted Batman's gangster scoop up to take place in Japan just so I could come on here and say something witty. lol. However, the point remains that there was far little was meaningless in TDK. Some things push the imagination, yes. But it's supposed to be larger than life. That's what makes it a movie. Nothing, however, is just there to be cool. Everything that is cool is just that much cooler since it's there for a legitimate reason.
Sep 30 - 06:58 AM
Edward Norton equals control freak...
Sep 29 - 12:49 PM
Stars and Cars of Need for Speed
What are his Five Favorite Films?
Your 10 most anticipated
A trailer to kill for