PDA

View Full Version : Man in Suit v CGI-Your thoughts on the Hulk 2:Hulk/Abomination


DANZIGG
04-29-2006, 08:47 PM
Well you heard Avi Arad 2008 for Hulk 2/Incredible Hulk! and I for one am as exited as hell. But with no clear means of financing outside the Paramount deal how will they pay for this and Iron Man? If it's Man in suit well you seen the Thing in F4 movie which I'm not knocking. As the CGI Hulk in the first movie looked ropey in places, but overall CGI was the best way to capture the Hulk in his truest form. But with limited movement in a suit will it mean that the fights between Hulk & Abomination are just one punch and the other goes flying whereas the fights can be more complex with CGI. My only concern with CGI is they have to make sure they at the minimum they match the CGI Hulk from the first film, but should endevour to improve it. I want this to work and would not like to see corner's cut financially and as result have an unimpressive Hulk film. I want this film to work the first film is underated and in time will be a cult classic. I only hope that they can still get Eric Bana back.

rodhulk
04-29-2006, 11:37 PM
CGI, the size, look, etc..... is the only way to go. At least, what I would like. I found the CGI in the first movie to be almost perfect, too. I can't wait for the sequel. :up:

Sava
04-30-2006, 02:27 AM
CGI, Hulk looked great, if they had a bit more money, the CGI would have been flawless

El Payaso
04-30-2006, 10:37 AM
Cgi

Sabretooth
04-30-2006, 10:37 AM
People give the man in suit idea too much crap. I still say use the man in suit/animatronics for close ups and CGI for full body shots and action scenes. But,no point in it now if teh first had all CGI.

The Kid
05-02-2006, 06:31 AM
http://lit.cs.fsu.edu/advanced/labs/Photoshop/hulk.jpg

aint broke. don't fix it.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1056683891505_2003/06/27/hulk,0.jpg

aint broke. don't fix it.

http://superherohype.com/gallery/Hulk/The_Movie/Movie_Stills/ewjun4.jpg

aint broke. don't fix it.

http://www.hulkmovies.com/images/promos/jennifer-connelly.jpg

aint broke. DONT FIX IT!!!

El Payaso
05-02-2006, 06:52 AM
Man in a suit.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/BUSINESS/06/23/go.fashion.jones/story.suit.jpg

Just no.

IronMan_2005
05-02-2006, 07:30 AM
http://lit.cs.fsu.edu/advanced/labs/Photoshop/hulk.jpg

aint broke. don't fix it.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1056683891505_2003/06/27/hulk,0.jpg

aint broke. don't fix it.

http://superherohype.com/gallery/Hulk/The_Movie/Movie_Stills/ewjun4.jpg

aint broke. don't fix it.

http://www.hulkmovies.com/images/promos/jennifer-connelly.jpg

aint broke. DONT FIX IT!!!

YES!:up: More Jennifer Connelly please!

Keep the CGI, everything looked fine, just change the purple shorts and everything is good to go

Odin's Lapdog
05-02-2006, 11:23 AM
haha, some people actually still want a man in a suit who will look like he's having a hard time even dealing with a fire engine

hahhahha


*cough*thething*cough*



if you want some pesky little thing doing impossible tasks, superman retrns will fulfill your needs.

look how small he is compared to that aircraft wing and we are supposed to think he's got the right to have leverage over it.

hehhehehe...

:o

LEAVE HULK OR HULK WILL CRUSH!!!

Zimmy
05-02-2006, 01:44 PM
I'm all for CGI but for a different point of view...
Watch the original ending for Scary Movie 3.
They did this horrible spoof on The Hulk movie that they removed when Hulk wasn't a huge hit.
Now, I'm not saying it is amazing effects but for the budget, it looked pretty good for a spoof movie.
It was basically a guy in a suit using depth of field effects.
A combination of that and CGI might work.

Don Corleone
05-04-2006, 08:00 AM
I'm all for CGI but for a different point of view...
Watch the original ending for Scary Movie 3.
They did this horrible spoof on The Hulk movie that they removed when Hulk wasn't a huge hit.
Now, I'm not saying it is amazing effects but for the budget, it looked pretty good for a spoof movie.
It was basically a guy in a suit using depth of field effects.
A combination of that and CGI might work.

no way, first off they didn't use it in SM3 because it sucked big time, and second of all, take the CGI of the original movie and add a few years technology on that, it can't be any worse, it could only get better :hulk:

Spider - Man
05-04-2006, 05:27 PM
cgi

Sava
05-05-2006, 10:51 AM
who the f**k voted for Man in Suit? :mad:

spideyrunner
05-06-2006, 05:41 AM
I prefer CGI Hulk to be return...it's a must.

Iam pretty sure that they will take him back for the sequel.

Alcatraz
05-06-2006, 01:35 PM
CGI. if it was a man in suit it would be total garbage. do you really want it to end up like Juggernaut or the Thing? HULK NEEDS CGI TO BE HULK!

co2
05-06-2006, 01:54 PM
why is this even up for debate?

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-08-2006, 04:47 AM
CGI, no question. CGI in Hulk was amazing, i could always tell what he was feeling through his facial expressions. Then came Kong, imagine what CGI will be like in 2008 when you see how good Kong was. And although H2 wont have £200 million budget, it also wont have a director that is payed $20 million, a big cast, and Hulk wont be 3 hours long or on screen as much as Kong was.

thorstone
05-08-2006, 04:57 AM
They should do it in stop motion animation. It would be photorealistic.

Sava
05-08-2006, 06:38 AM
They should do it in stop motion animation. It would be photorealistic.
sure... while we are at it, why not just do it like a silent movie

Odin's Lapdog
05-08-2006, 06:41 AM
in black and white

co2
05-08-2006, 06:45 AM
screw the movie....let's just have a pop-up book.

terry78
05-12-2006, 05:40 PM
They should do it in stop motion animation. It would be photorealistic.
Sure, and afterwards we can take a ride in my Model T while we wait for Alexander Graham Bell to invent something better than two cans tied together with a string. :o

MR.Fixit
05-14-2006, 02:54 PM
the best way to go is the mighty joe young way.cgi,animatronics and man in suit.it got that movie effects nominations galore and that was in 1998.u put lou ferigno or another giant menace looking of a man in a suit and it works.Chiklis was a near perfect thing if it wasnt for him being 5'6".

Bullseye
05-14-2006, 10:23 PM
CGI is the only way.

BAH HUMBBUG!
05-15-2006, 03:56 AM
Man in suit, perferably one of the state puff marshmellow ones :up:

Bullseye
05-15-2006, 10:00 PM
Man Suit is too limited for what could be done for the Hulk movies. CGI is the way to go. Just need a better story that what the first movie had.

Dragon
05-16-2006, 04:25 AM
why is this even up for debate?

Because CGI = flop. Actor = $$$$$

Man Suit is too limited for what could be done for the Hulk movies. CGI is the way to go.

Because... of course an actor can't walk, run, punch, lift and make facial expressions.

Sava
05-16-2006, 04:43 AM
Because... of course an actor can't walk, run, punch, lift and make facial expressions.

yeah, cause the Thing looked awesome, right?

Odin's Lapdog
05-16-2006, 05:12 AM
dragon, whether or not the film made money or not is no big reflection on the quality of it.

there are plenty of films that made lots of money and i don't feel that they are good films when on the other hand there are plenty of smaller ones which i think are far superior.

The real reason the film didn't do as well as anticipated is that it was marketed incorrectly. Adverts geared it as mindless violence while it actually took a far more serious tone.

Obviously if you are going to do this, then you are going to enter some trouble. I would have preferred it being completely adult and being like blade but unfortunately it comes down to selling toys so it had to be geared down as much as possible and the kids aren't going to get it. So they cheated and pretended it was for kids to get them into the theatres.

what can ya do?

:o

no reflection on the quality of film itself though

Dragon
05-16-2006, 07:18 AM
yeah, cause the Thing looked awesome, right?

He looked like the Thing. The movie wasn't any good, so no one looked good.

And neither did the Hulk look awesome. He looked like a rubber toy.

Sava
05-16-2006, 07:31 AM
He looked like the Thing. The movie wasn't any good, so no one looked good.

And neither did the Hulk look awesome. He looked like a rubber toy.
you must be confused, you see, THe Thing looked like a rubber toy, the Hulk atleast looked good and in some part awesome. ;)

Dragon
05-16-2006, 07:45 AM
dragon, whether or not the film made money or not is no big reflection on the quality of it.

there are plenty of films that made lots of money and i don't feel that they are good films when on the other hand there are plenty of smaller ones which i think are far superior.

Yeah, and there are plenty of bad films that didn't make money, and good films that did make money. The Hulk certainly wasn't a small film. It was a 150 million dollar blockbuster. It wasn't made properly and didn't capture what the Hulk is about.


The real reason the film didn't do as well as anticipated is that it was marketed incorrectly. Adverts geared it as mindless violence while it actually took a far more serious tone.

You guys really need to stop playing that song. The trailers focused on both the drama and the action. It's not the marketing department's fault if the film itself didn't deliver. And I keeping asking this and getting no answer- Do you honestly believe that if the film was marketed as a drama or whatever it is you guys like to think of this movie as it would've drawn in the audiences? Who would've gone to see it? Not families, not teens, and certainly not dramatic film fans. The people who are exclusively into films like "Seabiscuit" or "A Beautiful Mind" or the kind of small films you mention like "Requiem for a Dream" weren't going to be lining up to see a 15 foot green giant fighting his shape-shifting father.

Anyway King Kong kills this excuse. It was certainly marketed as an action film, and there isn't very much action in the movie. And- it didn't even have as big an opening weekend as the Hulk. Yet- movie audiences were there, and it made its money. And before that the Lord of the Rings trilogy also proves this false. All 3 hour films with only sparse sections of action, yet in all of the trailers, action is what dominates. And these films all were great successes. There's nowhere to go other than the Hulk failed because it wasn't very good.

Obviously if you are going to do this, then you are going to enter some trouble. I would have preferred it being completely adult and being like blade but unfortunately it comes down to selling toys so it had to be geared down as much as possible and the kids aren't going to get it. So they cheated and pretended it was for kids to get them into the theatres.

what can ya do?

:o

no reflection on the quality of film itself though

Blade? Blade wasn't in anyway an adult film. It was an adolescent action/horror film, clearly aimed at the teenage audience. Not remotely in the same category as the Hulk.

Anyway, none of this effects the subject at hand. No one here has seen what the Hulk prosthetics would look like, and yet you're positive it can't work. Realize- that just as CGI technology improves, so too does the tehnology for constructing applainces and so forth.

Like I've said-- what comic book fans don't get is that while they're used to relating to flat 2-D images, thus a 3-D image is actually an improvement, the movie audience by-enlarge want someone REAL to relate to. That's why they connected with The Thing. Michael Chiklis is a talented actor, and he emoted effectively even through those tons of prosthetics. And once again- you guys might not want to accept this- but Big Lou is who the worldwide audience looks at as the Hulk- not that that rubber action figure that was running around in Ang Lee's movie.

I don't see why there's such a lack of imagination on all of your parts. There's nothing the CGI Hulk could be shown to do that an actor can't accept for the leaps which would be done as CGI regardless.

And you folks love to say that the CGI Hulk was true to the comics. But he wasn't. He doesn't have the definition and muscularity of say, Dale Keown's Hulk or Adam Kubert's. In fact, as I've noted, he's not even as defined as most body builders. He merely has girth, which isn't even necessary, but could be realized with the prosthetics.

Dragon
05-16-2006, 07:52 AM
you must be confused, you see, THe Thing looked like a rubber toy, the Hulk atleast looked good and in some part awesome. ;)

What were those?

Anyway, again- the FF was a bad movie overall- No one looked good. But it isn't as though good action scenes and so forth couldn't have been done with Grimm. And Grimm's dramatic scenes were better than anything they did with The Hulk.

The point is, neither looked real. But Grimm looked believable. The Hulk didn't.

Sava
05-16-2006, 08:02 AM
What were those?

Anyway, again- the FF was a bad movie overall- No one looked good. But it isn't as though good action scenes and so forth couldn't have been done with Grimm. And Grimm's dramatic scenes were better than anything they did with The Hulk.

The point is, neither looked real. But Grimm looked believable. The Hulk didn't.
Hulk looked awesome in the desert fight with the tanks and the helicopters (except for one scene), Hulks' dramatic scenes were better IMO, when he's in San Fran waiting for Betty, the look in his eyes as he watches her walking down the stairs was better than anything they did with The Thing in F4. I know that Hulk does "cry" in the comics much but he still acted better. I cant believe you actually think that The Thing looked "real" while Hulk looked like a rubber toy

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-16-2006, 08:59 AM
The Hulks emotions were a lot better than the Things in FF, i'll agree that Chiklis is a good actor and did very well in the suite, but he constantly looked fake to me, were as the Hulk, imo, looked real 95% of the time, even to this day i think he does, and thats after wathcing Kong 8 times.

Odin's Lapdog
05-16-2006, 09:07 AM
Urgh, i hate this whole post disecting culture but so be it.

Yeah, and there are plenty of bad films that didn't make money, and good films that did make money. The Hulk certainly wasn't a small film. It was a 150 million dollar blockbuster. It wasn't made properly and didn't capture what the Hulk is about.

My point is that there is no correlation direct correlation between quality and returns at the box office.

The movie hulk has different motivations and aspirations than the comic one, he's been adapted to see what would happen if this situation were to occur in our world. THe hate/relationship banner has with his alter ego isn't seen in this world cause he has no reason to hate him, the hulk didn't go around causing apparent chaos and hurting people, he subconciously did what bruce wanted him to do so why would you hate a superpowered being who obeyed your request? there's no reason for it. It captured a new relationship with accepting who you are and where you come from, accepting defeat, accepting your past, your present your future.

pehaps not what comic hulk is about but one can say that the tv drama never really captured the true relationship between banner and the hulk, especially since the hulk couldn't talk and therefore couldn't express his views on his human counterpart. Nor could it really show the extent of his powers.


You guys really need to stop playing that song. The trailers focused on both the drama and the action. It's not the marketing department's fault if the film itself didn't deliver. And I keeping asking this and getting no answer- Do you honestly believe that if the film was marketed as a drama or whatever it is you guys like to think of this movie as it would've drawn in the audiences? Who would've gone to see it? Not families, not teens, and certainly not dramatic film fans. The people who are exclusively into films like "Seabiscuit" or "A Beautiful Mind" or the kind of small films you mention like "Requiem for a Dream" weren't going to be lining up to see a 15 foot green giant fighting his shape-shifting father.

Anyway King Kong kills this excuse. It was certainly marketed as an action film, and there isn't very much action in the movie. And- it didn't even have as big an opening weekend as the Hulk. Yet- movie audiences were there, and it made its money. And before that the Lord of the Rings trilogy also proves this false. All 3 hour films with only sparse sections of action, yet in all of the trailers, action is what dominates. And these films all were great successes. There's nowhere to go other than the Hulk failed because it wasn't very good.

Please show me these trailers that go into the psychological aspects of bruce banner's relationship with his father that only views his son as a weapon because i must have missed them

The point is if the film was marketed in the correct way, less people would have gone into the cinema disappointed, meaning more repeat viewings in subsequent weeks which would have caused for a cumatively better sucess overall and cult status again leading to stronger dvd sales. At the end of the day people were mislead. If you go in expecting a comedy and you get a drama, you're bound to be disappointed. It's human nature. It's not about attracting a different audience, it's about being legit to the audience you've set the film for.

king kong and lord of the rings have never been sold as pure mindless action. lotr is a fantasy film based on a popular book so it's fanbase is already large and are looking to see how the story is adapted. King kong films were built on the back peter jackson's sucess on lotr and also had the 'remake factor' of people wishing to see how the new version marks up to the old remake. Even on comparison there is still a larger proportion of action/fantasy in both of these films than there is in the hulk film. Both of these films know their main audiences. Infact none of them came out in the summer as 'blockbuster movies', both had winter releases to stay away from that stigmata, while hulk was billed as a summer blockbuster for 2003 but it certainly wasn't a blockbuster type, it beats to a different drum than spidey and ff and even parts of hulk where it's light, there are no light bits, it's not all around family fun, it has very personal polar appeal of whether you like it or don't but was billed as fun for all.

although a bold choice, it was i feel a good one but then when marketing comes along, they just want it to sell, so they do what they normally do and don't sell the emphasis of the story at hand, so right from the get go, right from early reviews everyone is getting the wrong end of the stick.


Blade? Blade wasn't in anyway an adult film. It was an adolescent action/horror film, clearly aimed at the teenage audience. Not remotely in the same category as the Hulk.

Anyway, none of this effects the subject at hand. No one here has seen what the Hulk prosthetics would look like, and yet you're positive it can't work. Realize- that just as CGI technology improves, so too does the tehnology for constructing applainces and so forth.

Like I've said-- what comic book fans don't get is that while they're used to relating to flat 2-D images, thus a 3-D image is actually an improvement, the movie audience by-enlarge want someone REAL to relate to. That's why they connected with The Thing. Michael Chiklis is a talented actor, and he emoted effectively even through those tons of prosthetics. And once again- you guys might not want to accept this- but Big Lou is who the worldwide audience looks at as the Hulk- not that that rubber action figure that was running around in Ang Lee's movie.

I don't see why there's such a lack of imagination on all of your parts. There's nothing the CGI Hulk could be shown to do that an actor can't accept for the leaps which would be done as CGI regardless.

And you folks love to say that the CGI Hulk was true to the comics. But he wasn't. He doesn't have the definition and muscularity of say, Dale Keown's Hulk or Adam Kubert's. In fact, as I've noted, he's not even as defined as most body builders. He merely has girth, which isn't even necessary, but could be realized with the prosthetics.

you can label blade as you wish, i'm happy simplifying things into the adult/child subgroups. Blade isn't marketed for young children in any manner, it's content isn't necessarily for younger children, it didn't have a toy line, it wasn't advertised on children's channels on prime time, it wasn't a child film, unlike spidey and x-men and ff which milked on being able to get kids in.hulk tried to tap into the latter when it really should have been for the former but when you're trying to shift thousands of toys being made based on this film (where a large proportion of the money comes from), one has to try and comprimise or at least give that impression via advertising and reducing violent content.

Prostetics of Hulk would basically look like a green version of juggernaut uncovered to a certain extent, no larger than the scales used for the THING

I'm not sure how much more the THING was liked, personally i hated the character but it comes down to relatability with the self loathing of hating the way he looked, something the hulk doesn't have, infact the hulk loves the way he looks and looks at his alter ego as puny. Not only this but the THING had speaking lines while the hulk pretty much didn't and had to act through his emotions, now CGI characters can be loved considering they have a decent speaking role, look at toy story, incredibles, GOLEM, all loveable characters but when your screen time is limited to getting something done (which is pretty much when banner hulks out), then he gets down to the job and speech is probably the last thing on his mind, infact anytime it comes for hulk to speak, he returns back to bruce (which is quite nice). The relatability of a silent character can only get to a certain level unless the audience are ready to go into the motivations of that character and the turmoil they have to get through. It's not easy. The thing with no speaking parts would have gone down like a ton of bricks and a really bad looking one for that.


as for muscle definition, everyone knows that when bodybuilders compete, that's when they are actually at their phsyical weakest so they muscles are at their most define. they starve themselves and reduce water intake to gain that look, taking on a body builder just before a competition is probably your best chance of kicking their ass.

the strongest people in the world generally aren't that defined. I made a thread about a year ago about the hulk's physique and it was generally agreed that his size was fitting to his strength rating and perhaps the angrier he became, the more defined he became just due to having to burn as much extra energy as possible causing for the skin to tauten around his muscles giving the impression of becoming more defined.

in the 80s the worldwide audience view of batman was very camp, yet it didn't stop burton giving his own version of the dark knight in batman and batman begins. An Audience's opinion can be changed easier than one imagines.



all in all it comes down to if the original was remade in exactly the same way except for having a man in a suit, it definitely wouldn't have been a better film visually, storywise or commercially. so what point would it make to do so?

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-16-2006, 09:33 AM
^Great post and some very good points

Dragon
05-16-2006, 11:26 AM
Hulk looked awesome in the desert fight with the tanks and the helicopters (except for one scene), Hulks' dramatic scenes were better IMO, when he's in San Fran waiting for Betty, the look in his eyes as he watches her walking down the stairs was better than anything they did with The Thing in F4. I know that Hulk does "cry" in the comics much but he still acted better. I cant believe you actually think that The Thing looked "real" while Hulk looked like a rubber toy

So, again, what did the Hulk do in the desert fights and so forth that an actor can't do?

The Thing had weight and presence. He could communicate with the other actors. The Hulk looked like a character from a Pixar film- and by that I mean he looked like a cartoon character. Give me an example of what the Thing was supposed to look like as opposed to how he looked in the film- and further how this couldn't be achieved via a suit.

And regardless this is all just opinion, not fact, but you guys are stressing it as though it's fact. And your argument is especially weakened by the fact that you haven't seen what the Hulk prosthetics would look like so as to know for sure it wouldn't work.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-16-2006, 11:41 AM
Yes Dragon, we havent seen the prosthetics, but we have seen the CGI Hulk, and all agree that it was the perfect way to go, i do not want to see anything other than CGI.

Sava
05-16-2006, 01:32 PM
So, again, what did the Hulk do in the desert fights and so forth that an actor can't do?

The Thing had weight and presence. He could communicate with the other actors. The Hulk looked like a character from a Pixar film- and by that I mean he looked like a cartoon character. Give me an example of what the Thing was supposed to look like as opposed to how he looked in the film- and further how this couldn't be achieved via a suit.

And regardless this is all just opinion, not fact, but you guys are stressing it as though it's fact. And your argument is especially weakened by the fact that you haven't seen what the Hulk prosthetics would look like so as to know for sure it wouldn't work.
when did i say an actor couldnt do it?... just that the Man in suit idea wont work. I'm sorry but the comment about Hulk looking like something out of Pixar is bulls**t. If you honestly believe that, then you and i would never agree on this. No point in going on.

Dragon
05-16-2006, 01:43 PM
My point is that there is no correlation direct correlation between quality and returns at the box office.

Yeah, but blockbusters- even so-so blockbusters tend to do proportionate business. And the Hulk had a huge opening. Yet there was some reason why it didn't get repeat business.

The movie hulk has different motivations and aspirations than the comic one,

And yet Hulk movie fans defend it as being more accurate to the comics.

he's been adapted to see what would happen if this situation were to occur in our world.

No it wasn't there was no real world psychology behind the Hulk.

THe hate/relationship banner has with his alter ego isn't seen in this world cause he has no reason to hate him, the hulk didn't go around causing apparent chaos and hurting people, he subconciously did what bruce wanted him to do so why would you hate a superpowered being who obeyed your request? there's no reason for it. It captured a new relationship with accepting who you are and where you come from, accepting defeat, accepting your past, your present your future.

If Banner had self-acceptance and a strong psyche', he wouldn't need to become the Hulk. Or if he did, he'd be in total control of his actions. In the film, Banner describes the Hulk as "mindless". If he were in control he wouldn't. And- If he were in control, then he wouldn't have needed Betty to help him to calm down and transform back. Also, he wouldn't have nearly strangled Betty after the dog fight. There are numerous examples of just how he wasn't in control of the Hulk actions. The Hulk was instinct. And BTW- The Hulk wouldn't have called Bruce a "puny human" if Bruce and the Hulk were at peace with each other.

Please show me these trailers that go into the psychological aspects of bruce banner's relationship with his father that only views his son as a weapon because i must have missed them

I just watched the trailer. Now, its 2 minutes 28 seconds long. It's 45 seconds before they even show the Hulk, showing images of bruce as a child and with Betty and so forth. It's actual 1:45 in before they actually show the Hulk in combat. Prior to that its more drama, and shots of the army mobilizing. So there's actually about the last 45 seconds approxiamately devoted to "hulk smash" action. Barely a third of the trailer. For comparison, I just watched the Kong trailer. There's an equal amount of action shown. And- another stirke against the marketing gripe from Hulk movie fans- MOST people watching Kong complained about hwo the first FULL HOUR moved slowly- yet still Kong had tons of repeat business but the Hulk didn't.

The point is if the film was marketed in the correct way, less people would have gone into the cinema disappointed, meaning more repeat viewings in subsequent weeks which would have caused for a cumatively better sucess overall and cult status again leading to stronger dvd sales. At the end of the day people were mislead. If you go in expecting a comedy and you get a drama, you're bound to be disappointed. It's human nature. It's not about attracting a different audience, it's about being legit to the audience you've set the film for.

Even if the Hulk were mis-marketed, it had ample time to find an audience. they were certainly enough folks like your self who "got" what Ang Lee weas doing. There were aa number of reviewers such as Roger Ebert who loved the movie. And the Hulk had a hyuge opeineing weekend- there should have been enough word of mouth to propell trhe film IF it was merely an issue of marketing as you say.

king kong and lord of the rings have never been sold as pure mindless action.

Neither was the Hulk. Even while showing the action scenes there's explanation going on via voice over in the trailers. Where was any "mindless" action being shown- And further- based on the Hulk comics was showing him combatting the military wrong? The term mindless action is for films where action sequences have nothing to do with the plot. There is alot I can say for the Hulk movie, but at least all of action did have a purpose.

Prostetics of Hulk would basically look like a green version of juggernaut uncovered to a certain extent, no larger than the scales used for the THING

How on earth would he look like JUGGERNAUT? Juggernaut wears armor. They gave Vinnie Jones fake abs- easily remedied by simply hiring an actor that has good musculature. The only need for prosthetics with the Hulk would be to make his hands and feet look larger and some appliances to his face. And he doesn't have scales like The Thing, so it's apples and oranges.

all in all it comes down to if the original was remade in exactly the same way except for having a man in a suit, it definitely wouldn't have been a better film visually, storywise or commercially. so what point would it make to do so?

Because the audience clearly prefers a real actor. The Hulk TV show was a hit, the movie flopped. People still look at Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, not the CG character. The examples of beloved CG charaters were either supporting characters (Golem) or characters in completely CGI films- so they didn't love them because of their being CG, but because the films were well-made.

With a real actor, the Hulk becomes someone that the audience- beside the comic fans can connect with. Just as people are now becoming excited over the new actor playing Superman, the same could be happening with the Hulk. Can't happen if the HULK is all CGI.

In fact surveys were done some months ago that suggest that people don't like photorealistic CG characters as much as they do cartoonish ones. Thus why Pixar films do well, yet films like Final Fantasy & Hulk don't.

Also the film's man-power doesn't have to be devoted to making the Hulk do mundane actions so that more effort can be made to make the action scenes exciting.

And again- if even the guy who supervised the Hulk animation thinks the Hulk should have been an actor that tells you something. He knows MUCH more about the limits of both CG and appliance technology than the people here.

Dragon
05-16-2006, 01:44 PM
Yes Dragon, we havent seen the prosthetics, but we have seen the CGI Hulk, and all agree that it was the perfect way to go, i do not want to see anything other than CGI.

Hardly ALL agree. Just the people who post on these boards, who are mostly hardcore fans of this movie.

Dragon
05-16-2006, 01:52 PM
when did i say an actor couldnt do it?... just that the Man in suit idea wont work.

Well, you don't actually believe they'd make a FULL BODY HULK SUIT for someone to wear, do you? Does that make any sense?

I'm sorry but the comment about Hulk looking like something out of Pixar is bulls**t. If you honestly believe that, then you and i would never agree on this. No point in going on.

It's not bulls**t. I'm not saying this simply to be facetious. The last time I was watching the movie- to settle yet another debate on these boards- while watching the scene of him running on the sand dunes I honestly felt like I was watching Mr. Incredible or one of those characters run. It's because the CG technology has that feel. It makes characters light and bouncy, not possessing the weight of a real human. Spider-Man has the same problem in those movies. But at least in his case, we accept that he should look pretty light. But the Hulk should appear massive and heavy.

Anyway, my point isn't for us to agree. I'm just looking for you guys to back up your argument rather than saying "CGI is the ONLY WAY TO GO" and other movie fans patting you on the back, but no one makes an argument as to why this is true.

Cracker Jack
05-16-2006, 01:59 PM
And BTW- The Hulk wouldn't have called Bruce a "puny human" if Bruce and the Hulk were at peace with each other.

And why would Banner want to isolate it and destroy it? :eek:

Sava
05-16-2006, 02:32 PM
Well, you don't actually believe they'd make a FULL BODY HULK SUIT for someone to wear, do you? Does that make any sense?



It's not bulls**t. I'm not saying this simply to be facetious. The last time I was watching the movie- to settle yet another debate on these boards- while watching the scene of him running on the sand dunes I honestly felt like I was watching Mr. Incredible or one of those characters run. It's because the CG technology has that feel. It makes characters light and bouncy, not possessing the weight of a real human. Spider-Man has the same problem in those movies. But at least in his case, we accept that he should look pretty light. But the Hulk should appear massive and heavy.

Anyway, my point isn't for us to agree. I'm just looking for you guys to back up your argument rather than saying "CGI is the ONLY WAY TO GO" and other movie fans patting you on the back, but no one makes an argument as to why this is true.
your right about Hulks' weight, he did look light, but that can be solved with out the Man in suit idea. CGI isnt the only way, but its a better way than having Hulk just like the THing with only the man in suit thing going on. If its a mix of both or more, then i can live with that. If i have to choose bewteen either Man in suit or CGI, i would choose CGI, i think most people would. But i would like there to be a mix of both or 200mill budget and 2years to make the movie... since there is no way in hell we'll get the last option, a mix of both will be fine.

Odin's Lapdog
05-16-2006, 03:08 PM
right, you're choosing your arguments now and dropped some, progress....
Yeah, but blockbusters- even so-so blockbusters tend to do proportionate business. And the Hulk had a huge opening. Yet there was some reason why it didn't get repeat business.

And yet Hulk movie fans defend it as being more accurate to the comics.

No it wasn't there was no real world psychology behind the Hulk.
the reason i believe is that it was sold for what it wasn't, and i've gone over those points so i'm not going to reiterate

Personally i've got less than 20 hulk comics in my collection so i'm not a crazy collector but looking on from the outside in and judging on the reaction to a being getting super powers and how those around him may react to this, aka adapting the story to fit in with the world today i've felt it's done the most accurate job of portrayal. not like the way the x-men are treated, not llike the way blade is treated, not like the way the fantastic four is treated and not like the way spidey is treated. Hulk's not a hero, if you take away all the powers, you still have a story about a man and his relationship with his father while he's girlfriend's father thinsk he's going to do the same to his daughter as his dad did to his wife.

i don't know how accurate that was but i found that to be appealling.

there's definitely psychology behind the film, i could dedicate a whole thread to looking at the in depth nature of the characters in the film no problem what so ever, all the main characters seem to have real motivation of some sort while a lot of other films only pretend to give a lot of their characters motivation while the film really centres around one of them (x-men:wolverine,, spidey:parker fantastic four:Thing) and the rest of them support with mediocre motivation. if anything a surrogatae father and son dynamic with unresolved issues of dominnance is quite apparent and that's enough to fuel life long psychological studies about. To say there's nothing to gain wathcing this film shows you didn't go in with that in mind and that your intentions were merely to be entertained blockbuster style for a few hours, so you were a casualty of the advertising misdirection.


If Banner had self-acceptance and a strong psyche', he wouldn't need to become the Hulk. Or if he did, he'd be in total control of his actions. In the film, Banner describes the Hulk as "mindless". If he were in control he wouldn't. And- If he were in control, then he wouldn't have needed Betty to help him to calm down and transform back. Also, he wouldn't have nearly strangled Betty after the dog fight. There are numerous examples of just how he wasn't in control of the Hulk actions. The Hulk was instinct. And BTW- The Hulk wouldn't have called Bruce a "puny human" if Bruce and the Hulk were at peace with each other.


hahaha, of all the primary objectives banner wished to set out before turning into the hulk, all of them were done by the hulk, with the majority having bruce turn back once these primary objectives had been obtained. Examples, saving betty, travelling to san fran, beating his father. That's 75% of all the transformations on film. the first one also had a sucess rate but banner didn't immediately turn back, perhaps due to his influence from his father which kept him agitated.

the hulk may be mindless but he isn't wreckless of without coherent thought, he knows what he's doing or what he has to do, just like a relunctant child who is told to tidy his room, he may fuss but at the end of the day he gets it done and doesn't need constant supervision to get his tasks done.

i think you're mistaking my passive control for active control.

as for the puny banner seen, again i made a thread about that scene and the general concensus was that while falling banner was trying to gain control of the hulk and change back, however the hulk sensed this mid fall and refered to banner as puny as recognition that banner wouldn't survive the fall as a human and thus kept control of the HULK BODY in order to save them both. Again a theory but it wasn't really questioned when put up in the thread.


I just watched the trailer. Now, its 2 minutes 28 seconds long. It's 45 seconds before they even show the Hulk, showing images of bruce as a child and with Betty and so forth. It's actual 1:45 in before they actually show the Hulk in combat. Prior to that its more drama, and shots of the army mobilizing. So there's actually about the last 45 seconds approxiamately devoted to "hulk smash" action. Barely a third of the trailer. For comparison, I just watched the Kong trailer. There's an equal amount of action shown. And- another stirke against the marketing gripe from Hulk movie fans- MOST people watching Kong complained about hwo the first FULL HOUR moved slowly- yet still Kong had tons of repeat business but the Hulk didn't.
Again that's one trailer (could you show me the lilnk for a reference piece). What about all the tv spots that were released, far shorter and more emphasis on the action, one can say that about most action tv spots but when there's no basis to support your expectations of the film it's easy for children and young adults to think this is pretty much what is going to happen all the way through.


to be fair, i think people tailed off watching kong as well, the only thing that saved it is that it appealed to a much larger fan base than the hulk did becaus it also had the 'compare-to-the-original' factor along with it. Besides, even though it was a longer film, relatively there is a far larger proportion of Kong on screen than there is with the hulk, you don't get to see the hulk sleeping or really resting like with Kong, there's not much development with his character (as stated before) because he's got stuff to do on banner's behalf. it's like trying to speak to someone who's got a work deadline, you might as well be invisible, kong was more chilled plus you got to see the love side more, you emphasised with him when he was taken captive and shot at and died etc, with the hulk it's more envy than emphasis, who wants to relate to someone who is bigger faster better than you and knows it.

A direct comparison of those films as being similar just isn't feasible, two different monsters entirely, one has mass appeal to emphasise with, the other is supposed to generate empathy through bruce banner but realistically, IF YOU WERE THE HULK, wouldn't you love it? i bloody would. not much to emphasise with there


Even if the Hulk were mis-marketed, it had ample time to find an audience. they were certainly enough folks like your self who "got" what Ang Lee weas doing. There were aa number of reviewers such as Roger Ebert who loved the movie. And the Hulk had a hyuge opeineing weekend- there should have been enough word of mouth to propell trhe film IF it was merely an issue of marketing as you say.
Time? what do you mean, you don't call in a marketing team half way through teh second week to draw up some new advertising campaign, that's just crazy, no one does that. Have you ever seen a film do anything like this before.

to be fair, adverts for the dvd sales were indeed different but damage had been done by then

the problem with the word of mouth is that it was all dissapoint because a LARGE amount of people were mislead to view something they didn't expect. again, that's what did the damage, if they weren't had been mis-directed in the first place, it wouldn't have occured like it did.

for every good review, there were probably 10 normal people saying it wasn't their cup of tea, no review in the world is going to weigh up more than someone who's actually watched it.


Neither was the Hulk. Even while showing the action scenes there's explanation going on via voice over in the trailers. Where was any "mindless" action being shown- And further- based on the Hulk comics was showing him combatting the military wrong? The term mindless action is for films where action sequences have nothing to do with the plot. There is alot I can say for the Hulk movie, but at least all of action did have a purpose.


[quote]
How on earth would he look like JUGGERNAUT? Juggernaut wears armor. They gave Vinnie Jones fake abs- easily remedied by simply hiring an actor that has good musculature. The only need for prosthetics with the Hulk would be to make his hands and feet look larger and some appliances to his face. And he doesn't have scales like The Thing, so it's apples and oranges.

firsly, when i said scales, i meant size scales, not scaly skin
secondly, your vision for the hulk is some body builder in green with fake hands and feet?????? ...
what i was getting at is that size wise he would fairly small and wouldn't be able to perform the feats shown in the original film or any larger feats, unless everyting else was scaled down which would still bring in size variation problems.


Because the audience clearly prefers a real actor. The Hulk TV show was a hit, the movie flopped. People still look at Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk, not the CG character. The examples of beloved CG charaters were either supporting characters (Golem) or characters in completely CGI films- so they didn't love them because of their being CG, but because the films were well-made.
A direct correlation on the hulk sucess based on purely one show back when technology wouldn't allow it had an actor as the hulk while one had the cgi effect is unheard of.

that's like saying the original king kong made more relative money because king kong was made of clay :o and don't go telling me the old king kong wasn't loved because he's a movie icon 'and' the start to film with a live cast.:)

again i ask you if the original film was done with a body builder instead of cgi, do you honestly belive it would have done better especially recreating all teh scenes we saw?
.



With a real actor, the Hulk becomes someone that the audience- beside the comic fans can connect with. Just as people are now becoming excited over the new actor playing Superman, the same could be happening with the Hulk. Can't happen if the HULK is all CGI.
yeah true, but it's the marketing people's job to get the crowd in no matter what's being shown, surely making the job easier for them doesn't mean the end product is necessarily going to be any better. There was no supreme chiklis loving as the thing to be honest, not like tobey/spidey or jackman/wolvie. chiklis being a real person i don't feel helped fantastic four, saying this i don't think it hindered it either. however his feats were certainly a long way down on what the hulk was performing on camera, he was visiually a limited character feat wise but then again maybe that's not directly related to the prosthetics either.


In fact surveys were done some months ago that suggest that people don't like photorealistic CG characters as much as they do cartoonish ones. Thus why Pixar films do well, yet films like Final Fantasy & Hulk don't. is this spritis within or advent children we are talking about?

and golum and yoda have one of the biggest fan followings ever and they are cgi characters in some of the biggest films of all time.


Also the film's man-power doesn't have to be devoted to making the Hulk do mundane actions so that more effort can be made to make the action scenes exciting.you mean like spending 14 hours everyday putting these characters in and out of make up, sounds very exciting :o


And again- if even the guy who supervised the Hulk animation thinks the Hulk should have been an actor that tells you something. He knows MUCH more about the limits of both CG and appliance technology than the people here.at the end of the day it's just an opinion he gave based on personal preference, same as mine unless he gave actual reasons for his argument which i would like to hear if he did.

BAH HUMBBUG!
05-16-2006, 03:15 PM
Plain and simple the Hulk CG looked and still looks amazing, people are just used to run of the mill or poor CGI (such as in movies like Star Wars) so they think that is the standard. When really the CGI in the Hulk ( or at least on the Hulk himself) is great and should be kept :up:

Dragon
05-16-2006, 04:09 PM
your right about Hulks' weight, he did look light, but that can be solved with out the Man in suit idea. CGI isnt the only way, but its a better way than having Hulk just like the THing with only the man in suit thing going on. If its a mix of both or more, then i can live with that. If i have to choose bewteen either Man in suit or CGI, i would choose CGI, i think most people would. But i would like there to be a mix of both or 200mill budget and 2years to make the movie... since there is no way in hell we'll get the last option, a mix of both will be fine.

They did use CGI for the Thing for some action scenes. And most people wouldn't choose CGI for the Hulk since the more successful version was the Lou Ferrigno Hulk.

About the Thing- the only problems with him was how he was used. Yes, the design could have been different (including the large brow and smaller blockier nose). Some people griped about his chest design, which is neither here nor there. But it could have been done differently.

The point is- he fit the name THE THING. He looked inhuman, and super strong. The fact that the director had no imagination and created very boring scenes with him doesn't mean the man-in-suit thing was wrong.

Again- Ang Lee created boring scenes with the CGI Hulk, yet so many of you believe that's no reason to change him.

Cracker Jack
05-16-2006, 04:14 PM
Personally i've got less than 20 hulk comics in my collection

Sorry to jump in here and this is not a poke at you but this explains alot. Where do you know the Hulk from? The TV show and the movie? As a long time collector even though they botched up the origin, I think Ang got some aspects of the comic Hulk right. To me it will be a great day when they actually have the comic Hulk on screen.

the hulk may be mindless but he isn't wreckless of without coherent thought, he knows what he's doing or what he has to do

This is one statment that makes me think you're starting to get an idea of who the Hulk is. However, The Hulk isn't doing something because Banner wants him to, he's doing it because it's something Banner would do. Eventhough they're different and hate each other, they are still the same. Again, not a poke at you.

while falling banner was trying to gain control of the hulk and change back, however the hulk sensed this mid fall and refered to banner as puny as recognition that banner wouldn't survive the fall as a human and thus kept control of the HULK BODY in order to save them both. Again a theory but it wasn't really questioned when put up in the thread.

Right and wrong. The Hulk passed out from a lack of O2. He did recognize that Banner wouldn't survive and kill them both. But the Hulk took control because he wanted to be in control and save himself. That's my $0.02.


what i was getting at is that size wise he would fairly small and wouldn't be able to perform the feats shown in the original film or any larger feats, unless everyting else was scaled down which would still bring in size variation problems.



Can't is not in The Hulk vocabulary, actually, there's not a whole lot in the Hulk vocabulary. :) The reason the Hulk is INCREDBILE is because he can do the things that he shouldn't be able to do. Spider-man can lift a tram or stop a speeding train. Superman can do just about anything but the Hulk throwing a tank would look wrong because he's to small? C'on.

Sava
05-17-2006, 03:17 AM
They did use CGI for the Thing for some action scenes. And most people wouldn't choose CGI for the Hulk since the more successful version was the Lou Ferrigno Hulk.

About the Thing- the only problems with him was how he was used. Yes, the design could have been different (including the large brow and smaller blockier nose). Some people griped about his chest design, which is neither here nor there. But it could have been done differently.

The point is- he fit the name THE THING. He looked inhuman, and super strong. The fact that the director had no imagination and created very boring scenes with him doesn't mean the man-in-suit thing was wrong.

Again- Ang Lee created boring scenes with the CGI Hulk, yet so many of you believe that's no reason to change him.

I disagree, the action scenes in the Hulk were good. I doubt people still think that painting a guy green and giving him a f**ked up wig would be better than CGI or Man in Suit. From all the thing we've seen from Man in Suit (Doom and F4), they dont look that good for a character like Hulk, CGI can be great as we've seen from I,Robot, LOTR and KK. Your right, we dont know what Man in suit could look like with a great director, i doubt we'd get someone like James Cameron for Hulk 2.

Dragon
05-17-2006, 04:09 AM
Personally i've got less than 20 hulk comics in my collection so i'm not a crazy collector but looking on from the outside in and judging on the reaction to a being getting super powers and how those around him may react to this, aka adapting the story to fit in with the world today i've felt it's done the most accurate job of portrayal. not like the way the x-men are treated, not llike the way blade is treated, not like the way the fantastic four is treated and not like the way spidey is treated.

The Hulk movie was no more real world than any of the other films you mentioned. Bruce Banner's reaction to becoming superhuman is different from X-men, Spider-Man et al because he's a different person, with a different life experience, achieiving his powers under different conditions.

His reaction isn't more realistic, just more realistic for him. If he were born with his powers and spent his life having to hide them because of a fearful society, his reaction would be different. If he was a teenaged science nerd who got super powers accidently and was the product of a loving home, his reaction would have been different.

Hulk's not a hero, if you take away all the powers, you still have a story about a man and his relationship with his father while he's girlfriend's father thinsk he's going to do the same to his daughter as his dad did to his wife.

The Hulk/Bruce is heroic. He does unselfish things even though his angry demeanor might make it appear that he won't. There's more to being a hero than putting on a costume going out looking for villain ass to kick.

And no- the film wasn't about his relationship with his father. There was no relationship other than David wanting to exploit Bruce. Bruce's relationship with David was no different than his relationship with Talbot.

That's an example of the weakness of the film's writing.

there's definitely psychology behind the film, i could dedicate a whole thread to looking at the in depth nature of the characters in the film no problem what so ever, all the main characters seem to have real motivation of some sort while a lot of other films only pretend to give a lot of their characters motivation while the film really centres around one of them (x-men:wolverine,, spidey:parker fantastic four:Thing) and the rest of them support with mediocre motivation.

That's a laughable point. And I'd be more than happy to see your take on the characters and their motivations, as well as how they're stronger than the other characters you mentioned.

But in a nutshell, as I'd mentioned above you're talking apples and oranges again. Different people with different backgrounds will react differently to the same phenomena.

Bruce had no motivation in the film. He was a cypher. He never did anything but react to what others did to him. That was another weakness in the writing. He had no drives other than in the beginning to make his theories real. After that he did nothing. If he had been trying to control his transformations or end his life or take an aggressive stance against Ross and his father, that at least would've been something. But he did nothing.

As for the psychological aspect, again, nothing. did Bruce try to understand himself and his motivations psychologically? No. Did anyone else try to look into Bruce's psyche for answers to controlling the Hulk? Nope.

if anything a surrogatae father and son dynamic with unresolved issues of dominnance is quite apparent and that's enough to fuel life long psychological studies about.

Where was that?

To say there's nothing to gain wathcing this film shows you didn't go in with that in mind and that your intentions were merely to be entertained blockbuster style for a few hours, so you were a casualty of the advertising misdirection.

It shows nothing of the sort. I wanted to see a tense psycholgical journey in search of self on Banner's part. Ang Lee simply didn't deliver. If anything, you're trying to rationalize your appreciation of the film by bringing up plot points that weren't there.

hahaha, of all the primary objectives banner wished to set out before turning into the hulk, all of them were done by the hulk, with the majority having bruce turn back once these primary objectives had been obtained.
Examples, saving betty, travelling to san fran, beating his father. That's 75% of all the transformations on film. the first one also had a sucess rate but banner didn't immediately turn back, perhaps due to his influence from his father which kept him agitated.

The Hulk fulfillimg Bruce's moral imperative doesn't mean much. Many people with self-loathing issues will still rise to the occasion when needed. And fighting his father isn't even a valid argument. His fahter attacked him. He was merely fighting back.

the hulk may be mindless but he isn't wreckless of without coherent thought, he knows what he's doing or what he has to do, just like a relunctant child who is told to tidy his room, he may fuss but at the end of the day he gets it done and doesn't need constant supervision to get his tasks done.

Dude, mindless MEANS without coherent thought.

i think you're mistaking my passive control for active control.

What? :confused:

as for the puny banner seen, again i made a thread about that scene and the general concensus was that while falling banner was trying to gain control of the hulk and change back, however the hulk sensed this mid fall and refered to banner as puny as recognition that banner wouldn't survive the fall as a human and thus kept control of the HULK BODY in order to save them both. Again a theory but it wasn't really questioned when put up in the thread.

Not a very good theory, especially since you've been espousing that Bruce and the Hulk were on even keel. If Bruce's survival instinct was intact, and we know it was- he wouldn't have made the transformation while he was still in danger. And- if as you say the Hulk and Bruce were of a single mind, the Hulk wouldn't need to attack Bruce subconsciously.

Again that's one trailer (could you show me the lilnk for a reference piece). What about all the tv spots that were released, far shorter and more emphasis on the action, one can say that about most action tv spots but when there's no basis to support your expectations of the film it's easy for children and young adults to think this is pretty much what is going to happen all the way through.

That was the MAIN trailer. As for TV spots, they're only 15 to 30 seconds long, and always emphasize the big action for EVERY MOVIE.


to be fair, i think people tailed off watching kong as well, the only thing that saved it is that it appealed to a much larger fan base than the hulk did becaus it also had the 'compare-to-the-original' factor along with it.

Not really. Much of the younger audience hasn't even seen the original film.

A direct comparison of those films as being similar just isn't feasible, two different monsters entirely, one has mass appeal to emphasise with, the other is supposed to generate empathy through bruce banner but realistically, IF YOU WERE THE HULK, wouldn't you love it? i bloody would. not much to emphasise with there

[quote]Time? what do you mean, you don't call in a marketing team half way through teh second week to draw up some new advertising campaign, that's just crazy, no one does that. Have you ever seen a film do anything like this before.

Whose talking about bringing in a new marketing crew? I'm saying that After the film was released, it was playing long enough and had ample opportunity for good word to be spread to bring in the audiences. The problem, again- is the movie- not the marketing.

the problem with the word of mouth is that it was all dissapoint because a LARGE amount of people were mislead to view something they didn't expect. again, that's what did the damage, if they weren't had been mis-directed in the first place, it wouldn't have occured like it did.

It has nothing to do with being misled. If the film was good people would've connected to it whether it was what they were "expecting" or not.

for every good review, there were probably 10 normal people saying it wasn't their cup of tea, no review in the world is going to weigh up more than someone who's actually watched it.

People weren't saying it wasn't their cup of tea. That would indicate it was a good movie that they weren't interested in. But most people simply thought it was a poorly constructed film.


secondly, your vision for the hulk is some body builder in green with fake hands and feet?????? ...

Yup. Nobody had a problem with the concept in films like LOTR or Diehard.

what i was getting at is that size wise he would fairly small and wouldn't be able to perform the feats shown in the original film or any larger feats, unless everyting else was scaled down which would still bring in size variation problems.

This isn't a problem at all. Superman is smaller than the Hulk, yet he pulls off feats of strength that are just as impressive. and naturally, when necessary they would shift the Hulk's size digitally, create CG props and environments. Which BTW- they still have to do with a CG Hulk.

A direct correlation on the hulk sucess based on purely one show back when technology wouldn't allow it had an actor as the hulk while one had the cgi effect is unheard of.

But that's the point. People loved the Hulk lo-tech, just because he was an actor that they could identify with. But when they were given a Hulk that was CGI, they didn't care.

again i ask you if the original film was done with a body builder instead of cgi, do you honestly belive it would have done better especially recreating all teh scenes we saw?

In a way, yes. True, the scenes were pretty bad to begin with. But as I'd said- they could have done more if they didn't have to spend money and man hours to get the CG Hulk to do simply tasks like turn his head and blink. I'm an animator and I know doing things like that can be time consuming. If an actor did most of the work, they could've put time into making more exciting action scenes, so that would've made the film more exciting. Also, as I'd said, if an actor was playing the Hulk, that would've drawn in people simply because they would've been excitied to see the actor who was playing the Hulk.

yeah true, but it's the marketing people's job to get the crowd in no matter what's being shown, surely making the job easier for them doesn't mean the end product is necessarily going to be any better.

It's the marketing crew's job to get people into the theater, and they succeeded. It's the filmmakers' job to keep people going back. And they failed.

There was no supreme chiklis loving as the thing to be honest, not like tobey/spidey or jackman/wolvie.

Actually there was. Most people felt he and Chris Evans gave the stand-out performances of the film. Even people like myself who hated the movie admit that Chiklis was good.

at the end of the day it's just an opinion he gave based on personal preference, same as mine unless he gave actual reasons for his argument which i would like to hear if he did.

Nonsense. He's in far better a position to judge. His opinion is a professional one, not that of a fan.

thorstone
05-17-2006, 05:20 AM
This is stop motion animation thirteen years ago in test shot format:

http://www.darkstrider.net/gomorex.html

I have to say the skin on that looks better than the Hulk from the first movie, because it's real. You can't simulate that in a computer unless you have six years and a two hundred million dollar budget. You can however with a lot less money enhance it with computers creating motion blur, particle effects, smoke, fire, and liquids.

Also noteworthy, the Garthok from 1993:

http://darkstrider.net/video/Garthok


The technology and methods have advanced, I believe this is the budget wise path they should take.

Odin's Lapdog
05-17-2006, 07:14 AM
Still picking out points and not answering questions brought up, fair enough...


The Hulk movie was no more real world than any of the other films you mentioned. Bruce Banner's reaction to becoming superhuman is different from X-men, Spider-Man et al because he's a different person, with a different life experience, achieiving his powers under different conditions.

His reaction isn't more realistic, just more realistic for him. If he were born with his powers and spent his life having to hide them because of a fearful society, his reaction would be different. If he was a teenaged science nerd who got super powers accidently and was the product of a loving home, his reaction would have been different.
not necessarily realism in teh way the actual character deals with his abilities, rather realism in how the world as a whole has to say about having a super powered being. Without a doubt the first thing any civilization would do would be to hold such a being in captivity indefinitely to study it and experiement on it in order if they can gain any use of him to be exploited in military application. That's not happened in the spidey, or fantastic four, one can argue x-men with wolverine but not to the same extent. Spidey and fantastic four are seen as public figures, the hulk isn't and is barely seen by the public at all with his limited signs showin fear. He's not iconic and he's not fighting for the bigger picture nor does he have these fantasy ideals of thinking his alternate persona is going to make a big difference to the world yadda yadda yadda.


The Hulk/Bruce is heroic. He does unselfish things even though his angry demeanor might make it appear that he won't. There's more to being a hero than putting on a costume going out looking for villain ass to kick.
There is only one selfless act the hulk performs through out the film and that's saving the pilot's life, the rest were for himself. Even then, he's not particularly angry when he does so, until the pilot starts to agitate him again by increasing altitude. I don't know what heroic traits the hulk really showed, i mean i've seen more heroic traits from Doc Ock to be personally honest. As for banner, bar saving the life of rick which is what i would feel any good man would do in his position, i didn't find anyting about him remotely heroic either. explain why you think he is



And no- the film wasn't about his relationship with his father. There was no relationship other than David wanting to exploit Bruce. Bruce's relationship with David was no different than his relationship with Talbot.

That's an example of the weakness of the film's writing.
The film is centred around bruce's dormant thoughts about how his mother was killed and how his father's obsessiveness of his experiments led to creating his son who was only ever seen as an extension of his work.It also centred around Ross' relationship with david and how he believes the apple doesn't fall far from the tree while trying to protect his daughter and masking this all under the rug that is national security. Although david's means are similar to Talbot's one's looking to be the personal recipient of this while the other is looking to exploit it for his nation's use, especially since it's indeed hardly ever being seen (bar x2) that a father wishes to exploit a son (wasn't x2 after hulk, thus making hulk the first example of this in the genre) which puts a twist on it.


That's a laughable point. And I'd be more than happy to see your take on the characters and their motivations, as well as how they're stronger than the other characters you mentioned.

But in a nutshell, as I'd mentioned above you're talking apples and oranges again. Different people with different backgrounds will react differently to the same phenomena.


if you wish to think that way so be it, Peronally i feel that no matter how differnt people are, thrust into a certain situation, the outcomes are going to be similar and a certain number of things would need to happen. In real life a secret identity would be impossible to keep, you're own flesh and blood would sell you out, plus with surviellance around you're every move can be easily tracked. Secondly things like the acceptance of people around you with better abilities, In x-men they are hated, in fantastic four, they are cheered and adored, in spidey 2 he's unmasked and carried in a christ like fashion, his costume is sold for a measly 100 dollars, he hapilly punches a human ni the face 9-10 times in a fight WITH super powers and he doesn't go down.

motivation, cause and effect, feasible reactions, these are what i mean the most when discussing realism. No matter how different are backgrounds are, if we were both shot, we'd both bleed red, some marvel films would have their characters bleeding gold. Now i'm not saying the hulk as a film bleeds red yet i feel it's closer to red than the other films put out which sometimes i don't think get the feeling that they have even been shot.



Bruce had no motivation in the film. He was a cypher. He never did anything but react to what others did to him. That was another weakness in the writing. He had no drives other than in the beginning to make his theories real. After that he did nothing. If he had been trying to control his transformations or end his life or take an aggressive stance against Ross and his father, that at least would've been something. But he did nothing.

As for the psychological aspect, again, nothing. did Bruce try to understand himself and his motivations psychologically? No. Did anyone else try to look into Bruce's psyche for answers to controlling the Hulk? Nope.


But that's the thing, If bruce was left to his own demises, the hulk would never occur, he's not going out looking for trouble or looking to keep order but he keeps getting swallowed back in. Personally i thought that's what the character was about and how a hulk story was told. you put a normal man in an extraordinary situation and watch him react to it. It sounds like perfect hulk story telling to me.

you do realise that the film takes place in like a week time span or soemthing like that. The very night bruce realises he's transformed at betty's house the next day he's whisked off and contained. then he's experimented on, unleashed again, contained, sees father for the last time when he's off again.

There simply wasn't time to expand on that aspect of things. Again I mention, why would you want to end your life when first of all you are unaware of what you have become and secondly when you do become aware, it's the sole means of what protects your loved one from danger? Bruce banner has no reason to hate the hulk, not yet. All feasible for the sequel but in the first film, he was too busty needing him, nor did the hulk cause the fatality of anyone or seriously injure a bystander in order for him to viewed negatively.

again it goes back to cause and effect as i mentioned earlier.



Where was that?
every scene banner had with banner


It shows nothing of the sort. I wanted to see a tense psycholgical journey in search of self on Banner's part. Ang Lee simply didn't deliver. If anything, you're trying to rationalize your appreciation of the film by bringing up plot points that weren't there.
which plot points are these?

again you went in looking to watch another banner and another hulk and it wasn't what you got but there was nothing i feel (and it's only my opinion) wrong with incarnations we got because they fit the bill of the film they were in.


The Hulk fulfillimg Bruce's moral imperative doesn't mean much. Many people with self-loathing issues will still rise to the occasion when needed. And fighting his father isn't even a valid argument. His fahter attacked him. He was merely fighting back.

where does bruce say anything about self loathing, he describes himself as 'liking' the freedom the hulk provides. I don't know where you want all this 'wishing to destroy' the hulk persona to come from, there clearly isn't any evidence for it in the film,it just can't come from no where.

He turned into the hulk way way way before his father layed a finger on him, Bruce was ready to kick some heads in, it definitely wasn't like the confrontation with talbot where he was blantantly aggravated and that's what triggered his hulk transformation, Bruce was ready for a confrontation, nor was his temperment in any manner self defence, he wanted that battle done and dusted from the get go.



Dude, mindless MEANS without coherent thought.

What? :confused: Bruce's underlying emotions controlled the hulk in that film, if only a lil at the beginning, then certainly more as the film went along, shown by his lil monologue to his father at the end. If this wasn't the case, how could he find his bearings out in the middle of no where and head to san fransisco, bite and spit the detonator of a missle warhead, save banner while falling and also know exactly where to land on that aircraft in order to shifts its momentum to not allow it to hit the bridge? Those are all signs of coherent thought to me. Considering how people in the west describe some primitive cultures as savage and mindless, i feel this is how a great man of science reffered to the hulk but it wasn't to be taken quite so literally as mindless. The hulk on film certainly wasn't out of control at any point and knew exactly what it was doing, there's no other way to go without hurting a single human being.





Not a very good theory, especially since you've been espousing that Bruce and the Hulk were on even keel. If Bruce's survival instinct was intact, and we know it was- he wouldn't have made the transformation while he was still in danger. And- if as you say the Hulk and Bruce were of a single mind, the Hulk wouldn't need to attack Bruce subconsciously.

He's unconscience, you have no control of your actions when you're out, adrenaline is running out, you know perfectly well that the transformations that occur aren't controllable. And i'm not saying there of one mind, i'm saying that there is a level of control. I mean the hulk found betty's house without ever ever seeing her before, there must be a part of him that can tap into banner's last conscience thoughts and eventually acts upon them, that's the level of control i'm talking about.

As the oxygen gets more thick, brain wakes up and hulk regains control, voila.

on a side note, how would you describe what's going on in that scene then.


That was the MAIN trailer. As for TV spots, they're only 15 to 30 seconds long, and always emphasize the big action for EVERY MOVIE.
it's certainly not to the same extent, the 'set me free' tv spot is basically a reduced desert scene and it was shown to children on every break, it's going to paint a picture.



Not really. Much of the younger audience hasn't even seen the original film.
but it's not a film for a younger audience, it's not especially marketed as a young audience film, neither was lotr, it was just made to encoporate the younger viewers so a family outing to the pictures could happen. And also so mcdonalds and toy companies could get a cut as well.

It's the stigmata of having a film based on a comic book where the violence and languageis limited, they are always going to be geared towards children.

look at the davinci code, it's the same rating as both of these films but in no way wouldsomeone say it's a children's film.

when making money, the lower the certification, the wider your audience but it in no way reflect the maturity of the film although in most cases it soemhow does.


A direct comparison of those films as being similar just isn't feasible, two different monsters entirely, one has mass appeal to emphasise with, the other is supposed to generate empathy through bruce banner but realistically, IF YOU WERE THE HULK, wouldn't you love it? i bloody would. not much to emphasise with thereyou never answered this question earlier:o



Whose talking about bringing in a new marketing crew? I'm saying that After the film was released, it was playing long enough and had ample opportunity for good word to be spread to bring in the audiences. The problem, again- is the movie- not the marketing.
you don't see how much power marketing has over people. Look at the x-men 3 campaign and the superman returns campaign, they are MASSIVE, word of mouth can't work alone especially if you've already been mislead. A new marketing strategy would have to be taken and that costs a fortune, especially working under such pressure.

you do understand that if the first batch of people don't like it, that word of mouth is only goign to work against your sales rather than help boost them right?


It has nothing to do with being misled. If the film was good people would've connected to it whether it was what they were "expecting" or not.
not entirely the case, if you go into a restaurant wanting nothing but chicken and you don't get it, then you'er bound to be disapointted with what you finally end up with. The same can be said for anything which raises expectations., that's just plain human nature and others feed heavily off it. whole establishments are can spend their entire business carreers doing fine but one bad thing and they end up forfeiting everything and even if not true, their business is forever tainted by bad publicity.



People weren't saying it wasn't their cup of tea. That would indicate it was a good movie that they weren't interested in. But most people simply thought it was a poorly constructed film.
i agree with the concept of this but i don't see why someone would see it as being poorly constructed.

To be fair i wasn't too keen of it when i watched it on the cinema but it's DVD purchase had me liking it with every watch until it very quickly surpassed all the other current renditions of comic characters on film.

however to see it's poorly constructed is very harsh description of it, especially compared to other film sin its genre both who made more and less money than it did. But again my fan perspective doesn't reflect what the mass view thinks, luckily i'm not influenced by theirs either.

anyway to stay on subject, do you feel a man in a suit would have helped with the construction of the film?




Yup. Nobody had a problem with the concept in films like LOTR or Diehard.
where in diehard?

you want the hulk to look like a giant green hobbit?

alright, since you are a man of proportion, where are you going to get a seven foot body builder from with that kinda muscle mass?



This isn't a problem at all. Superman is smaller than the Hulk, yet he pulls off feats of strength that are just as impressive. and naturally, when necessary they would shift the Hulk's size digitally, create CG props and environments. Which BTW- they still have to do with a CG Hulk.

lou ferringo (sp) or any rendition of superman have never pulled off feats of strength to the same scale as the hulk before in movies, name one single one.

superman's plane saving one has yet to be revealed in returns but as somoen who studies aircraft i can already see inaccuracies with what they have come up with..

you do realise that they would be a large amount of size shifting occuring if they were to do that, a large majority of the desert scenes simply couldn't work with ahuman. Tank shells, tanks themselves, missles, aircraft rounds, they are all very large scaled pieces of equipment, he would look silly for most of those scenes which means digital work and real time filming would be needed for all of those scenes, why not just keep them digital and save the hassle?



But that's the point. People loved the Hulk lo-tech, just because he was an actor that they could identify with. But when they were given a Hulk that was CGI, they didn't care.my point is that the would have cared more about the hulk if he was portrayed differently, it's not necessarily about the fact he's not real or not since there are non real charcters in real films that people have as icons, original king kong, golum, jessica & roger rabbit if we're going to 2d animation, it's the fact there wasn't anything to relate to. he was bigger better stronger than you and quite frankly knew it.

not speaking didn't help either.

again do you think if a human was to play that role as ang lee directed the cgi to play it, that the film would have been any better?

edit: you answer this below i've got it



In a way, yes. True, the scenes were pretty bad to begin with. But as I'd said- they could have done more if they didn't have to spend money and man hours to get the CG Hulk to do simply tasks like turn his head and blink. I'm an animator and I know doing things like that can be time consuming. If an actor did most of the work, they could've put time into making more exciting action scenes, so that would've made the film more exciting. Also, as I'd said, if an actor was playing the Hulk, that would've drawn in people simply because they would've been excitied to see the actor who was playing the Hulk.

you've got soem points but with the apparent gain of excitement comes increased cost of filming and special effects and time and also a reduction of the scale of what is achievable. An actor can rile up excitement but as you've noticed there already was a buzz to watch the film with just eric bana, the openings were large, it was the staying power that was a problem, how would having an actor/bodybuild that can act as the hulk help with that situation?
Don't forget that if you are having a human hulk you need to put nick nolte in a costume as well for the parts of the absorbng dad. Think of all those intricate costumes required and man hours spent on their design and also their fitting on a daily basis. unless you think it's fine for a human being to fight a cgi character. personally i don't remember any sort of fight like that ive enjoyed.


It's the marketing crew's job to get people into the theater, and they succeeded. It's the filmmakers' job to keep people going back. And they failed.
They both play a part but it's marketing's job to correctly portray the film and highlight why one would enjoy watching it rather than selling it as a summer blockbuster. Once you start selling a film as something it isn't then, you enter into problems.



Actually there was. Most people felt he and Chris Evans gave the stand-out performances of the film. Even people like myself who hated the movie admit that Chiklis was good.

really?


Nonsense. He's in far better a position to judge. His opinion is a professional one, not that of a fan.a professional opinion would be one based within his field, ie talking about something to do with cgi and decisions that were made. When simply going another means should be used can one honestly say that he's completely thought about the causes and consequences of those means via time, money and convinience that such a decision would make, especially one that would affect his income?

which employer has ever said to his boss that they don't think they should have been hired for the job at hand anyway?




ahh these posts are taking up too much time, i'm just going to stick to the thread relevant points in my next reply, interpretation of the film and marketing points i'm not going to address anymore.

Sava
05-17-2006, 07:51 AM
This is stop motion animation thirteen years ago in test shot format:

http://www.darkstrider.net/gomorex.html

I have to say the skin on that looks better than the Hulk from the first movie, because it's real. You can't simulate that in a computer unless you have six years and a two hundred million dollar budget. You can however with a lot less money enhance it with computers creating motion blur, particle effects, smoke, fire, and liquids.

Also noteworthy, the Garthok from 1993:

http://darkstrider.net/video/Garthok


The technology and methods have advanced, I believe this is the budget wise path they should take.

stop motion would take too long to do and how will they make him interact with real life thing?

Dragon
05-17-2006, 08:36 AM
I disagree, the action scenes in the Hulk were good.

Well, let's put it this way- if you think those were good, then if the scenes were taken to a level that would impress me, you'd be blown away. Because there's no question that more could have done than what was shown.

I doubt people still think that painting a guy green and giving him a f**ked up wig would be better than CGI or Man in Suit.

They won't think a painted green guy would look good? So I guess only painted blue people like Mystique, Night Crawler and The Beast can work? As for the wig- You think they couldn't create a wig like what was in the first movie? And you think painted fake skin would look better than painted real skin?

From all the thing we've seen from Man in Suit (Doom and F4), they dont look that good for a character like Hulk, CGI can be great as we've seen from I,Robot, LOTR and KK. Your right, we dont know what Man in suit could look like with a great director, i doubt we'd get someone like James Cameron for Hulk 2.

James Cameron isn't the only director that can do a good film. And your comparisons on both the CG and suit levels don't apply to the Hulk. The Man-In-Suit applications aren't like the Hulk's body type, and as far as CGI, none of the characters from those films either look like the Hulk or were the main characters. The audience expects more relatability to the main character. It's okay if a supporting character is CGI, because it's about how the others react to them. And, no Kong really isn't the main character of that film. Anne is.

Dragon
05-17-2006, 09:03 AM
Oh and BTW- I forgot to mention, the audience also accepted someone painted Red- (Hellboy). So I guess you guys are saying the color Green is the one unacceptable type of body paint? :rolleyes:

Sava
05-17-2006, 09:10 AM
Well, let's put it this way- if you think those were good, then if the scenes were taken to a level that would impress me, you'd be blown away. Because there's no question that more could have done than what was shown.



They won't think a painted green guy would look good? So I guess only painted blue people like Mystique, Night Crawler and The Beast can work? As for the wig- You think they couldn't create a wig like what was in the first movie? And you think painted fake skin would look better than painted real skin?



James Cameron isn't the only director that can do a good film. And your comparisons on both the CG and suit levels don't apply to the Hulk. The Man-In-Suit applications aren't like the Hulk's body type, and as far as CGI, none of the characters from those films either look like the Hulk or were the main characters. The audience expects more relatability to the main character. It's okay if a supporting character is CGI, because it's about how the others react to them. And, no Kong really isn't the main character of that film. Anne is.

1) i agree with you that there could have been more action stuff put into what we got. I still like what we got for the final product... except the last fight, that was s**t. You see, i dont think they got the best out of Ang for this movie, action wise i mean. Man in suit would work because its cheaper and easier to use. But why change it now?... Hulk would look way too different in the sequel and move different, act different. There is no use in changing IMO. Most of the money went towards creating stuff to make Hulk, now that they have it, wouldnt it be cheaper?, all the need to do is make Hulk look better.

2) oh please, Beast looks like s**t. Nightcrawler was ok but he wasnt the leading character in the film, if he was, you'd hear more people b**ching about it. Mystique actually looks great, i'll give you that.

3) JC IMO is the best at getting the most out of CGI or Make up or anything for that matter. He is the best at this, then i would say is Speilberg. Audience were able to relate to Kong, they knew how he felt, and the damn thing was a guerrilla. Hulk has to be able to show all the emotions we come to expect from him and we got that. In the 2nd movie, CGI should be better.

Dragon
05-17-2006, 10:10 AM
1) i agree with you that there could have been more action stuff put into what we got. I still like what we got for the final product... except the last fight, that was s**t. You see, i dont think they got the best out of Ang for this movie, action wise i mean.

Ang Lee himself said he was given everything he needed, so if the film died it was his fault. Ang Lee is not an action director. People look at Crouching Tiger as though it was something revolutionary, but it wasn't. That type of film has a been made since the 1920's in Hong Kong. All he did was follow the standard model for making such films.

Man in suit would work because its cheaper and easier to use. But why change it now?... Hulk would look way too different in the sequel and move different, act different. There is no use in changing IMO. Most of the money went towards creating stuff to make Hulk, now that they have it, wouldnt it be cheaper?, all the need to do is make Hulk look better.

If it were only about being cheaper, then I wouldn't suggest an actor (Like I said, I don't mean literally creating a full body Hulk suit, which would be nuts IMO. The Hulk's skin should move, bend and shift like a normal human's and a full suit wouldn't look natural enough.). I honestly think it would be better. As for it being too different- so what? The first film isn't the standard. I doubt anyone would be seriously disappointed (outside of folks in this forum) that the Hulk looked different, as long as the film was well made (Which is a whole other hurdle for Marvel). And as far as cost- most of the money didn't go into making the Hulk. They have to pay the animators ALOT to do the animation, which in the Hulk's case would be extensive. There'd be no saving money because of the work on the first film. And if as you suggest, they spent time improving the Hulk's look, that would involve developing a new model anyway.

2) oh please, Beast looks like s**t. Nightcrawler was ok but he wasnt the leading character in the film, if he was, you'd hear more people b**ching about it. Mystique actually looks great, i'll give you that.

If the Beast looks bad, it clearly isn't because of his painted skin, but other factors. The point is, painted skin is not inherently cheezy looking as some here have suggested.

3) JC IMO is the best at getting the most out of CGI or Make up or anything for that matter. He is the best at this, then i would say is Speilberg. Audience were able to relate to Kong, they knew how he felt, and the damn thing was a guerrilla. Hulk has to be able to show all the emotions we come to expect from him and we got that. In the 2nd movie, CGI should be better.

Cameron is talented, but doesn't always hit the mark. Look at his Spidey script. It was horrid. There are directos out there who could deliver a really good Hulk film. They simply have to be carefully chosen. In Ang Lee's case, it was merely his rep.

Sava
05-17-2006, 12:20 PM
Ang Lee himself said he was given everything he needed, so if the film died it was his fault. Ang Lee is not an action director. People look at Crouching Tiger as though it was something revolutionary, but it wasn't. That type of film has a been made since the 1920's in Hong Kong. All he did was follow the standard model for making such films.



If it were only about being cheaper, then I wouldn't suggest an actor (Like I said, I don't mean literally creating a full body Hulk suit, which would be nuts IMO. The Hulk's skin should move, bend and shift like a normal human's and a full suit wouldn't look natural enough.). I honestly think it would be better. As for it being too different- so what? The first film isn't the standard. I doubt anyone would be seriously disappointed (outside of folks in this forum) that the Hulk looked different, as long as the film was well made (Which is a whole other hurdle for Marvel). And as far as cost- most of the money didn't go into making the Hulk. They have to pay the animators ALOT to do the animation, which in the Hulk's case would be extensive. There'd be no saving money because of the work on the first film. And if as you suggest, they spent time improving the Hulk's look, that would involve developing a new model anyway.



If the Beast looks bad, it clearly isn't because of his painted skin, but other factors. The point is, painted skin is not inherently cheezy looking as some here have suggested.



Cameron is talented, but doesn't always hit the mark. Look at his Spidey script. It was horrid. There are directos out there who could deliver a really good Hulk film. They simply have to be carefully chosen. In Ang Lee's case, it was merely his rep.

1) Ang said that but he was being generous, I agree with you that Ang isnt the guy you hire to make a summer blockbuster.

2)So, your saying they should use Man in suit idea for like body shots? (like if Hulk's touching someone or his hand grabs something?). If thats what your saying then i agree %100. But i would still use CGI for action stuff, thats just me. THe Thing didnt look like he could move properly, maybe they did that on purpose, i dont know.

3) you are right.

4) i havent read the script, i just heard people talking about Spidey saying "mother f**ker" and shaging MJ on top of a bridge. I would still watch that movie, I think JC even with a script like this would have made a better Spidey film than what we have now.

Dragon
05-17-2006, 01:46 PM
Still picking out points and not answering questions brought up, fair enough...

I answered all I felt was relevant. Based on the size of these posts I think conserving as much space as possible is necessary. If there's something you feel I missed, feel free to reiterate.

not necessarily realism... .

You see, that's where you're off. Of course reaction would be different to Spidey and the others you mention, vs. The Hulk, who did- in EVERY APPEARANCE cause extensive damage and presented himself as a threat.

And- as bad as the FF was- the cops DID go at the Thing as though he was a monster and a threat. It was because he saved lives of their own that he was accepted. And Spider-Man you'll note is seen by some as a menace, mostly based on Jameson's rabble-rousing. The X-men are certainly considered a threat and hunted. But because no one knows who they are and many mutants can blend in to society, it's hard to find them. It isn't as though the government can simply go in and arrest someone because they exhibit unique abilities. This isn't Nazi Germany. They go after the Hulk because he usually causes damage. You see a gigantic green guy knock down a building, you have reason to feel threatened.

He's not iconic....

Again, you miss the point of the Hulk. When Stan Lee created him, he took the Thing concept a bit further to show that a character can be a hero despite being rejected by society. The Hulk doesn't set up an HQ or wear a costume- but when it comes down to it he does the right thing. He doesn't have to.

There is only one selfless act the hulk performs....

Again you misinterpret. The Hulk wasn't saving the pilot. He was saving the civilians on the bridge. They were showing that the military is the real threat, not the Hulk. Saving the pilot was merely a by-product of his act. and- saving Betty was certainly selfless.

I don't know what heroic traits the hulk really showed, i mean i've seen more heroic traits from Doc Ock to be personally honest.

When was THAT?

As for banner, bar saving the life of rick...

If we're talking comics- saving Rick ISN'T what any good man would do. Many people who simply look at it as Rick doing something stupid and while sad, wouldn't risk walking into an explosion to save him. Secondly, throughout his existence as the Hulk he would stand and fight against threat, when he could simply escape. That's the point- he's misunderstood. And yes- at times he rages. But that's because he's attacked by the military. There are too many stories to go over, but often accidents are preceived by others as deliberate attacks on his part, so the Hulk is inturn attacked (See Avnegers #1 for an archetypical example). so his herois is about his decision to help those who hate him (a constant theme in Stan Lee's work).

The film is centred around bruce's dormant thoughts ...

And that has nothing to do with a Father-Son relationship. David was victimizer and used Bruce- as YOU NOTED, as an extension of his work. He didn't treat him as a son. So that's my point. There was nothing in their relationship that contained the unique father/son dynamic.

It also centred around Ross' relationship with david ...

That's not true and isn't even dealt with in the film. Ross refers to Bruce as collateral damage. He also says that he thinks Bruce was cursed, but not necessarily that he thinks Bruce is like his father. David's actions were deliberate. Bruce is a victim of circumstance (thus, "cursed"). It's also a very cheezy coincidence that Bruce and Betty would just happen to be working together in their adult-life.

Although david's means are similar to Talbot's....

The fact that David intends to use Bruce for his personal gain of power, vs. Talbot's wanting to make money off of him is a very slim and insignificant difference. the point is that both see him as nothing more than a pawn to further their schemes. and, even if Bruce weren't his son, he'd still want to use him as such. So again, there's nothing unique to the father/son dynamic there.

if you wish to think that way so be it....

Yeah? Look around you. Does everyone react the same way to death? To being given large amounts of money? To being told that someone loves them? And as I'd mentioned, the circumstances under which all of the characters you mention achieved their powers was very different. Thus their reactions would have to be different.

In real life a secret identity would be impossible to keep, you're own flesh and blood would sell you out,

That's ridiculous. You realize how many families keep secrets? Even when the secret hurts them? And anyway- in Spidey's case, his loved ones didn't know for a very long time. The FF don't have secret identites and neither really, do the X-men. Agasin in each case, the scenario is different.

plus with surviellance around you're every move can be easily tracked.

Surveillance only happens if there's a reason. There was never a reason to track Peter Parker or many characters from the X-men. If it were that easy to track someone, every potential terrorist would be locked up.

Secondly things like the acceptance of people around you with better abilities, In x-men they are hated,

X-men don't exist in the same world as the FF. Mutants in general are treated as a threat, which is reasonable considering that many have vast destructive powers. But they are also treated with prejudice, and that's why this is shown as being wrong.

in fantastic four, they are cheered and adored,

The FF as noted is a bad film. But the point- is that they are cheered due to their celebrity status. It's meant to reflect the way that we as a society give a "free pass" to celebs. It's nboth supposed to be good and bad that this happens in context of the FF.

n spidey 2 he's unmasked and carried in a christ like fashion...

Okay- you're talking about too many things that are completed unconnected.

About the christ-like carrying thing- He just saved their lives- and put himself at great risk to do it- how else would they have reacted?

His costume being sold for 100 bucks- yeah, tha'ts seems to little, but it was a homeless guy desperate for money, and really has little to do with society in general's reaction to Spidey.

And punching someone in the face repeatedly? Uh.. If you mean Ock- you have to remember two important things- 1. Spidey is trying not to kill him, which means he has to pull his punches. 2. This is is very difficult to do, especially when your target is also moving fast and trying to kill you. So he errs on the side of caution and keeps his punches as light as possible.

motivation, cause and effect, feasible reactions...

WHAT? Anyway, something like bleeding or reacting to being hurt is consistent in the films. But what's different is how they react to having the powers, and how people react to them. Again- are you telling me if Spidey drop from a building and landed next to you, you'r reaction would be the same as if the Hulk dropped from a mile up, caused a near earthquake and created a crater that you'd probably fall into?

And- you're telling me that you'd react the same way if you suddnely discovered you had superhuman agility, ability to climb walls and super strength- as you would if you transformed, very painfully I might add- into a giant destructive creature that you had no control over, barely remembered what you did and scared the crap out of everyone around you?

Now i'm not saying the hulk as a film bleeds red...

Again dude- you're comparing different things. The reactions have to be different. Bullets don't hurt the Hulk. Bullets hurt Wolverine, but he heals afterward. Spidey doesn't heal very fast but he does, and bullet hits would hurt like hell. At the same time he's fast enough to dodge gunfire so why would he take a hit. Wolverine and the Hulk aren't fast enough to dodge gunfire. All very different dynamics.

But that's the thing, If bruce was left to his own demises, the hulk would never occur....

Not at all. His reaction was to do nothing. A strong character- a SCIENTIST no less- would have demanded, begged for the means the study and try to heal the situation. Bruce didn't.

you do realise that the film takes place in like a week time span or soemthing like that.

You don't know that. You don't know how long he was held when Talbot wanted to extract samples from him, or the amount of time that past while he was held when his father was allowed access to him (Another ridiculous story point on so many levels.)

The very night bruce realises he's transformed at betty's house ...

The point is that during that time Bruce would have been trying to do SOMETHING to get the situation under control (At least if he was a strong leading character). Trying to leanr why he'd transformed and how to control or stop it. And Betty for that matter, if she loeved him would've been trying to protect him. Going on the news and going to the ACLU. Not setting up meetings between him and his crazy, murderous father, when Ross was threatening to kill Bruce if he started to change again.

There simply wasn't time to expand on that aspect of things.

Then maybe Ang Lee should have written the script to include time for this. It isn't as if he had to use the story given. And considering the the psychological aspect is the most interesting thing about the story- he should have.

Again I mention...

Bruce would go through a host of emotions. He'd consider many things. He'd feel exhilerated by possessing so much power. He'd have fear for the damage he might cause or potential casualties. He'd feel sad because Betty likely would not want to live with him that way. He'd feel bad for being a fugitive. He'd feel angry that ross and the others would so quickly want to kill him. He'd consider suicide because that might bring him some peace. And again- he nearly choked Betty to death. If he had done that in hulk mode, she'd have been crushed like a grape. He didn't know what he was capable of. For all he knew, the Hulk could've become more savage and depraved. That's why I say he should have immediately attempted to study and try to control the Hulk.

Bruce banner has no reason to hate the hulk, not yet...

He had reason to fear the Hulk. Look at what happened at the first transformation. He wrecked the lab. If there were people in the building as he brought it down they could've been killed. When he tossed the gamma sphere he couldn't see where it went and it crushed a police are. what if someone was in there?


which plot points are these?

The father-son dynamic for one.

again you went in looking to watch another banner and another hulk..

I went in to see a good film, and you're right, that wasn't what I got.


where does bruce say anything about self loathing, he describes himself as 'liking' the freedom the hulk provides...

I'm not fixated on "wishing to destroy" the Hulk. I keep suggesting that that is only one of several options Bruce would entertain. But as Cracker Jack reminded me- Bruce does say in the film that he intended to isolate and destroy the Hulk. How did you miss that? But about the self-loathing- I'm saying that would be realistically inherent in the character's persona due to his path. Children from abusive homes often feel that it's their fault. The idea of the Hulk and Banner in the comics hating each other is a clear example of self-loathing, since they are the same person. Banner never felt it was cool that he was the Hulk. Only at times necessary. His "liking it" is that for the first time he felt free. It's just not a good thing that it involved a near mindless creature taking him over to do so. He'd rather expereince that freedom as Banner, having a happy life with Betty. But Ang Lee didn't deal with any of that.

Dragon
05-17-2006, 01:48 PM
He turned into the hulk way way way before...

Watch the film again (I'm apologize for suggesting that). Bruce only begins transforming when David goes haywire and starts absorbing the electricity and then Ross tries to fry him. Then David grabs him and blasts them out of the facility. David then attacks him in order to absorb the Hulk's power. He's fighting out of self-defense.

Bruce's underlying emotions controlled the hulk in that film...

You're confusing coherent thought with instinct. Animals who can't reason can still find their way home or attack an object they know is a threat.[/quote]

The hulk on film certainly wasn't out of control..

That was in the script. The tank driver and the helicopter pilots would have died if there was any hint of reality. And I'm not saying the Hulk was totally mindless. I'm just making the point that He certainly doesn't do everything based on GUIDANCE from Bruce Banner. He functions on a combination of instinct and a very mininal amount of control from Bruce's subconscious.

Anyway, the Hulk not being able to speak tells you he wasn't really in control.

He's unconscience..

Dude, you need to read the comics. The transformation is to a point controlled. At least back to Banner. He either transforms because the danger is past, or a chemical agent causes the transformation (His gamma machine, certain gases, etc.). He can be unconscious and remain the Hulk. And whenever there's danger he'll immediately transform.

And i'm not saying there of one mind, i'm saying that there is a level of control. I mean the hulk found betty's house without ever ever seeing her before, there must be a part of him that can tap into banner's last conscience thoughts and eventually acts upon them, that's the level of control i'm talking about.

We're see-sawing on this. There is a level of subconscious control and instinctive reaction on the Hulk's part. My point is that you're over-emphasizing the balance in the wrong areas. He doesn't go to save Betty because "Bruce controls him". He goes because Bruce knew she was in danger, and this sticks in the Hulk's mind after the transfromation. If Bruce were really in control, then he'd have transformed into the Hulk immediately after his father tells him that he's going to kill Betty, and not have waited until Talbot was beating him up.

As the oxygen gets more thick, brain wakes up and hulk regains control, voila.
on a side note, how would you describe what's going on in that scene then.

If they had shown the transformation start, then you'd have a point. But they don't. The scene is just another misfire. It was just a way to wake the Hulk up so he wouldn't drown by not holding his breath.

but it's not a film for a younger audience, ...

Fantasy-Adventure films are generally geared to a younger audience. If there was extensive nudity, sexual situations and less emphasis on action, cursing, and certain types of graphic violence, then it would be considered an adult film. And those films all had toy lines and video games.

It's the stigmata of having a film based on a comic book...

I think you mean stigma- "stigmata" is what leaked from Jesus' wounds during the crucificxion.

Anyway, why shouldn't children be able to enjoy comic films? Stan Lee and his crew were smart enough to genreate characters that appealed to a wide range of ages. The movies should also reflect this.

you never answered this question earlier:o

Would I love the power? yes. But not losing FULL control of my life. Not living like a fugitive.

And as far as comparing the Hulk and Kong films- yes you can. In fact, I firmly believe that Ang Lee was going for the Kong concept in his approach, which is why he made Bruce such a weak non-aggressive character. The point is, he failed, because that's not what the Hulk is supposed to be.

you don't see how much power marketing has over people...

Marketing only matters up until release. And the point is- that it succeeded. Everyone knew the Hulk was in theaters and the opening weekend reflects that. So, IF it was such a good movie, then the audience of folks such as yourself who loved it would have been able to find it and support it.

you do understand that if..

How is it that this wonderful film you guys are defending got poor word of mouth from EVERYONE? simply because it .. what? didn't have enough action? Didn't show the Hulk enough?? Cause.. The Hulk has as much screentime as Spider-Man, and both films have equal amounts of action. So if those folks love Spidey, they'd love the Hulk as well.

not entirely the case...

The Hulk had what the audience was expecting. It featured a superhuman character that did heroic things and it had plenty of action. Face it, what was there just wasn't any good. The story was incoherent and jumbled. The main character was boring and the villain was cheezy.


however to see it's poorly constructed is very harsh description...

Back when the film was released I went extensively through the film expressing what I felt were its flaws. It's been a long time so I don't remember everything. But bascially the story went nowhere. I'll say again that I'm not a fan of mindless, pointless action. I wanted to see a powerful drama and psychological plot line. Yes, I wanted HUGE action where appropriate. In fact I think there was enough action scenes. The problem is that they, like the story were poorly realized. The Hulk dog fight wasn't big enough (Also, the Hulk dogs were a poor choice to begin with). 4 creatures with that much power locked in savage battle would have deximated the forest. The Tank and Chopper fights were slow and also not very spectacular. And the fight with David was nonsense. Again, poor chocie of villain, weak choreography.

anyway to stay on subject, do you feel a man in a suit would have helped with the construction of the film?

Only to a point. With the script they had, it wouldn't have helped very much. other than making the Hulk more relatable, and allowing for bigger action because they would have had to use less animation.

where in diehard?

Bruce wore prosthetic feet to keep him from injuring his own feet.

you want the hulk to look like a giant green hobbit?

To a point he does look like a hobbit. He has disproportionately large feet and hands. Granted, I wouldn't care if the actor had them or not, but this is the excuse so many folks use for why the Hulk had to be CGI.

alright, since you are a man of proportion..

The CGI Hulk didn't have very great muscle mass. That's part of my point.
Secondly, you vary it per shot. At times you'd have to green screen the actor and increase his size digitally. At other times you use other teicks such as camera placements, making proportional props and so forth.

lou ferringo (sp) or any rendition...

Well first I'll list Superman. Lifting a helicopter. Lifting gigantic boulders. Re-directing a missile. In the new film he saves a plane. As for Lou, true, they didn't show him doing those things. But that's because the show didn't have the budget or inclination top make the Hulk that powerful. Remember bullets hurt him. But- if they wanted to show it, they could have. Just as they can show the CG Hulk lift a CG tank, they can show an actor do it.

superman's plane saving ..

Just like there were inaccuracies with the CG Hulk tossing the tank.

you do realise that they would be a large amount of size shifting ...

You're trading one hassle for another. Animating the Hulk takes just as much time. And you can't say it would look silly with an actor. You're saying, what, that showing an actor punch or throw things would HAVE TO look bad? Just because YOU can't imagine how to shoot the scene doesn't mean it can't be done.

An actor can rile up excitement ....

The same way Lou created excitment on the series. People loved Bill Bixby and Lou for different reasons. And merely the sexiness factor creates an additional dimension. For example women fantasized about Lou because of the power and savagery of his character. Same would apply here.

Don't forget that if you are having a human hulk...

Well again, Absorbing Dad was a poor choice of villain. But- The hero can FIGHT CGI monsters- just as in LOTR the heroes fought the CG Ogres and other creatures.

They both play a part...

Marketing did correctly portray the film. Only you guys making excuses for it thinks they didn't. Bottom line, I and every one I know that didn't like the movie didn't walk out saying "That wasn't the movie the trailers and commercials suggested" We all said- That movie sucked. Period. Just as we thought films like Godzilla '98 sucked. Not the ads- THE MOVIE.

really?

Yes.

a professional opinion..

Actually that's EXACTLY what it was. He makes his money doing CG animation. So if he said the man-in-suit route was the way to go, meaning he'd LOSE money, that means something. He's saying artistically, CG was too limited to generate a believable, relatable Hulk. And he's right. You can't compare characters like Gollum of Kong, because Kong is an ape, not a man- which the Hulk is expected to be. And Gollum is creepy, which the Hulk is NOT expected to be.

Dragon
05-17-2006, 01:54 PM
2)So, your saying they should use Man in suit idea for like body shots? (like if Hulk's touching someone or his hand grabs something?). If thats what your saying then i agree %100. But i would still use CGI for action stuff, thats just me. THe Thing didnt look like he could move properly, maybe they did that on purpose, i dont know.



That's pretty much what I mean. There's no way to amek a sci-fi/action film these days without CGI.

AS for the Thing- yeah, I guess they wanted him to seem lumbering. And I agree that much was a mistake. But maybe- MAYBE they felt he should be that way in the first film but as he gets used to his condition he'll get faster. One of the things I highly agree with Ang Lee about is in making the Hulk able to move fast.

Hugebear
05-17-2006, 06:59 PM
It wasn't made properly and didn't capture what the Hulk is about.


Isn't the Hulk about Bruce Banner getting hit with gamma rays and turning into a green monster who has incredible strength. Then the army wants to stop him.
And yes the comics did have Banner hate or fear the Hulk, but there wasn't enough time in the movie to go into this. And no Lee didn't need to write it into the script. There was too much going in the story already that he needed in his movie.

Marcus M.
05-17-2006, 07:20 PM
I say a body builder in body paint, using special-effects to make him look bigger.

Sava
05-18-2006, 02:45 AM
That's pretty much what I mean. There's no way to amek a sci-fi/action film these days without CGI.


i'd take that

Odin's Lapdog
05-18-2006, 05:55 AM
ah dragon, you're killing me with this dissection...

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-18-2006, 07:30 AM
I'm sorry, but IMO CGI is the ONLY way to go, a bodybuilder would look rediculous, you want reasons for CGI, here:

1) The Hulk is something unique and monstrous, he needs to look that way on film. A body builder would not capture that.

2) The foundation is already layed down in the first movie, we need some continuity in the sequel.

3) In order for the action to be better in the sequel, bigger feats than throwing tanks, etc are needed, again a bodybuilder could not lift a frigging tank.

4) Hellboy looked great, as did Abe Sapien, but Thing, Beast and Juggernaut all look less than average IMO. And they were all human-ish proportions, but when the proportions go bigger than this, we get Hyde out of LXG, who i thought looked bad, or we get CGI, in both Hellboy and LOTR, when the proportions got bigger than even the biggest human, PJ went with CGI.

5) Kong, the cgi now is much better than in 2003, so imagine it in 2008.

Odin's Lapdog
05-18-2006, 08:55 AM
I answered all I felt was relevant.
as for this, to go and find the questions in questions would take forever so i'll let them slide


You see, that's where you're off. Of course reaction
Alright, this comes down to personal intepretation of what would occur at the following events. If someone is 'visually' different no matter how slight and they are performing acts in public places, no matter how good or bad then there are bounds to be levels of unacceptance. That's how i feel but i understand if you feel different. Again i don't want to really detour from the original topic.


And- as bad as the FF was- the cops DID go at .

I really felt the fantastic four were treated with some leniency (sp?) but again that's me.

Spidey's hatred although assumed via news sales was never shared by any member of the public in both films, based on public reactions he truelly is an accepted character.

the x-men are not accepted but are tolerated as mutants with so called mixed reactions although we never really got to see any humans being accepting of their mutant abilities throughout the films. And the extent of the hulk's damage 'before' he was initially taken in for questioning was seen to be the damaging of parts of two buildings and parts of a car. The x-men with the brotherhood in their first film damaged a public place (train station) while magneto also threatened dozens of policement. You see i don't mind this because the hulk was tipped off by the betty to get his location but there was no follow up for the x-men or brotherhood. one can argue there was enough surveillance to at least go after the x-men since their location was already known by the government. I mean it's been done in teh comics before where the government has gone after the x-men based on acts that magneto has done. Saying this, they did go after them in the second film. My problem really isn't with the x-men as they deal with things far better but still trying to exploit mutants moe for military application would have been something i would have liked to see more of (kinda implied with wolvie but there are far more applicable pupils/mutants).


Again, you miss the point of the Hulk. When Stan Lee created him, he took the Thing concept a bit further to show that a character can be a hero despite being rejected by society. The Hulk doesn't set up hmmmm, i'm not sure if i would class the hulk as a superhero as far of the rest of them go, i mean he's fighting good guys just as often as he bouts with the bad guys.


Again you misinterpret. The Hulk wasn't saving the pilot.

Well you say to me later on in this that because we don't see a certain scene, you're not going to buy my interpretation of it. Yet you have a scene where airforce pilots are taking aim at a civilian structure in order to take down the hulk, there are no views of people in danger or of these dangered people when the hulk is deciding to jump on the Raptor. nor is there are reactions shown from the general public.

for me that scene was showing the hulk didn't see the military as enemies, rather than a hinderance on his journey. So he wasn't going to watch one die if he had a chance to save them.

and saving a love interest is not selfless, you're emotionally tied in with them, you have plenty to lose from their demise.


When was THAT?
Ock Taking the bullet and drowning his fusion reactor. He balanced out the lives of those in the cities in compares to his and spidey's and decided to sacrifice himself to perhaps redeem himself for what he's done. If the same act was done by spidey, everyone would be saying he died a heroic death. surely replacing the hero with a villain wouldn't change this fact?


If we're talking comics- saving Rick ISN'T what any good man would do.
again this just comes down to a level of morality we've defined personally. i feel this is what any good man would do in the film's situation.

Secondly, throughout his existence as the Hulk he would stand and fight against threat, when he could simply escape. That's the point- he's misunderstood. And yes- at times he rages. But that's because he's attacked by the military. There are too many stories to go over, but often accidents are preceived by others as deliberate attacks on his part, so the Hulk is inturn attacked (See Avnegers #1 for an archetypical example). so his herois is about his decision to help those who hate him (a constant theme in Stan Lee's work).


yeah i agree with all this, i don't know what point you're making with it, i'm on the same lines.


And that has nothing to do with a Father-Son relationship. David was victimizer and used Bruce- as YOU NOTED, as an extension of his work. He didn't treat him as a son. So that's my point. There was nothing in their relationship that contained the unique father/son dynamic.
you see for me, that is the father/son dynamic. i wrote something here but acidentally erased it :(.


That's not true and isn't even dealt with in the film. Ross refers to Bruce as Right, i seem to be using the word relationship very loosely, I meant Ross' views of Banner eventually turning out like his father and killing a close loved one, aka betty. I do personally feel that although not psychologically similar, ross is happy to treat david and banner in the same light since he feels bruce would eventually end up doing what his father did.


The fact that David intends to use Bruce for his personal gain of power, vs. Talbot's wanting to make money off of him is a very slim and insignificant difference. .Again i feel the fact that david wishes to use his own flesh and blood for his own purposes is bigger than the military application of talbot's work. I'm Happy to disagree with you there.



Yeah? Look around you. Does everyone react the same way to death? .
Not the same but very similar, the mourning and grieving effect is similar. People act similar when they are scared, afraid, happy, when hurt, when let down, when excited. It's noticeable. Again i'm not saying that it's all the same but put the majority of people through a similar situation and you'd expect them to react in a certain way.

my point is if you put a thousand people in parker's position of losing his uncle, how many of us would turn into vigilantes? I can honestly believe none would and would rather put their abilities into earning big buck to support their aunt in sports entertainment, that's how i feel that the guilt would mostly manifest itself as, while he would still be able to persue his academic goals etc.

but that's fantasy, amasing fantasy 15 to be honest, and i'm fine with that. Saying this, i feel the choice of actions taken by bruce i feel were more grounded since he reacted heroicly to situations rather than went out looking to be consciencely perform an act of heroism yadda yadda.



That's ridiculous. You realize how many families keep secrets? Even when the secret hurts them?
you also realise how many families put their loved ones into care because they are persuaded that this course of action is the best for the indicidual, i don't see why the same can't be said if persuaded giving over a loved one is the best course of action to take. heck even betty took it.

MJ's non interest in how his powers manifested seem a lil strange, harry's are acceptiple since he's in shock but that can be expanded. what i don't understand are the dozen people who unmasked him were unwilling to take a picture of their saviour to place in a paper. As you said, not everyone is going to react the same way to a situation yet it's fine to have everyone in a carriage 1st spidey fans, willing to keep the identity of a hero or not sell it to a paper (knowing who it is or isn't at that time is irrelevant to the fact, such things can be extrapolated by the media).


Surveillance only happens if there's a reason.
Well there will always be a reason to track the x-men or fantastic four, who can say that their actions will be genuine indefinitely, to not be prepared i feel would be a foolish decision to take. Skyscrapers are heavily monitored especially post 9/11, to say spidey can swing onto a building with a pizza and change, not be found out i feel is beyond me. Plus it's not like a terrorist who tries to remain in hiding, spidey is out during daylight, it's not like he's keeping under wraps. One can always say 'spidey sense won't let it happen' but there is little evidence of it being used for keeping identities in the films shown so far, if any. I think it would be more than feasible for a character to find out peter's identity. I mean private parties with no government ties or powers have managed to find out his identity in the past in comics before, i don't see why it wouldnt' be feasible in a real world situation.

X-men don't exist in the same world as the FF.

gathered

Mutants in general are treated as a threat,
This is because there are enough of them to stand up for themselves as a minority, the ff are four individuals, they practically shouldn't have a voice. i'm surprised how they were taken in with loving arms even though i felt they should have either been mobbed by the general population and taken into protection by the police or examined for government application. Again, that's just how i would feel would occur if they popped up today no matter how many people they saved on their debut. Saying this, the ff are immune to this in all medias and comic worlds for some reason.


The FF as noted is a bad film. But the point-
fine i can understand their reasoning behind the initial reaction from the public, but it's the quick acceptance and adoration i find strange, but meh.



Okay- you're talking about too many things that are completed unconnected. About the christ-like carrying thing- I certainly HONEST TO GOD, would be taking a picture of his face, I SWEAR. Not only that but i would be looking for a safe way to get off the train before ock came back, ya gotta look out for numero uno...


His costume being sold for 100 bucks- tramp or no tramp, a tramp wouldn't sell the world's biggest diamond for 30 bucks purely because he was hungry. The sheer importance of such a garment was underlooked considering how much it's worth realistically. A simple picture of Angelina and brad babies when it's born is apparently worth millions, a genuine superhero costume and exclusive rights to it is potentially worth tens of millions. The reflection the amount of money has on the costume counter reflects all the adoration we've seen by the public for the masked figure. All public reactions to him have been insanely positive, at the bank he has girls chasing after him, he's an unber celebrity yet his costume is undersold on purpose (it's not like JJJ has even haggled for it and is happy with the deal) and his unmasked face on the train is just taken as it is. the realism of real world green isn't shown in this film which is fine and dandy but i'm saying it's explored in the hulk which i feel makes the world it's set in closer to the one we are in now. I mean everyone the hullk comes into contact with tries to exploit him at one point or another, it's typical of those with a positio of power.


And punching someone in the face repeatedly? don't let me get started on the 'punch holding' argument. it doesn't stand to debate to be playing possume when the life of your only living relative is held in the balance. Ock got about four fists to the face, a head butt, a knee in the stomach and a back fist to the face, all unanswered for, pretty much in a row while being rolled off a building and falling with spidey. even if you take the average teenage boy and told them to give that damage to the average middle aged man, dude goes down, let alone agitated superhuman while his aunt hangs for her dear life.

there was no time for pussyfooting and although his actions showed this, the fact ock didnt go down again goes against it all, especially when in the first film spidey was taking out crooks just for a photo op with one hits to the face. The punch pulling doesn't stick.

ps spidey was in total control of ock during that whole scene and his face was always inches away from his. so the movement argument isn't applicable here.



WHAT? Anyway, something like bleeding or reacting to being hurt is consistent in the films. But
And- you're telling me that you'd react the same way if you suddnely discovered you had the bleeding argument was simply a metaphor, not something i was pickign up on.

alright, spidey and ff both made heroic debuts in public places, both were treated differently for doing similar things, I suppose you can say saving a firedepartment may get you more kudos than simplly taking down criminals an that spidey hasn't actually had any tv limelight but ff are openly accepted while spidey is 'apparently' hated by some. maybe this is because of the mask of something (which i don't understand because the public seem to love him).

i don't see why spidey and the ff are treated differently by the media really, i would see them in the same mould.

and i don't see why mutants aren't treated similarly to the hulk, ie under government wraps, at least some of them.


ha the second transfomation sounds like some of my friends after a night out drinking, haha.

React differenly, yes i would and they did. however if i turned into the hulk and i had the course of events that bruce did i would be more likely to follow his footsteps rather than follow the footsteps of parker if i had gained powers and uncle had died. and i certainly wouldn't get it with a girl i was trying to protect because she was stubborn :o

Again dude- you're comparing different things. The reactions have to be different. Bullets don't hurt the Hulk.

bleeding was really a metaphor dude, not to be taken literally...

Not at all. His reaction was to do nothing. A strong character- a SCIENTIST dude had just been out as the hulk, you know how hungry and tired that makes you? He didn't have time for any self healing. And i don't see why he would because he needed the hulk for a portion of what we saw going on.

In the timeframe of the film he simply wasn't given the time for these types of analysis.


You don't know that. You don't know how long he was held when Talbot wanted to extract samples from him, The relative time here is what is important. for both of the times you mention, banner is being held as a captive, i certainly wouldn't let any captive of mine try to attempt to cure himself while trying to extract samples from him. With one failed attempt there is nothing to say the army had stopped trying yet were just waiting for another better opportunity to do so, could well be examined in the sequel.

All i'm saying is that what was going on around banner, his mind was more than likely dealing with the situation he was put in rather than trying to deal with what he had become. The way the footage is presented, the timeframe isn't far off the orinal hypothesis of around a week, a busy week at that. Time for self-examining was not permitted.


The point is that during that time Bruce would have been trying to do SOMETHING to get the situation under control (At least if he was a strong leading character). Trying to leanr why he'd transformed and how to control or stop it. And Betty for that matter,
At betty's house even when undershock he pretty much gives a diagnosis of his condition with betty on the spot when realising what's happened. he knows why he transforms, hence why he knows to stop when talbot attacks him while in his cell and try and remain calm.

as said before, Betty's perception of doing the best thing for bruce isn't necessarily going to be to keep him hidden away, she thought she was doing the best thing for him at the time. By the end of the film she knows better, it shows growth.

Anyone's wish to see their son before they go on is more than likely to be answered especially if they offer co-operation, people shouldn't go back on their words when promises are made on such situations. but again open to interpretation.


Then maybe Ang Lee should have written the script to include time for this. It isn't as if he had to use the story given. well there is plenty of time to show this in a sequel, it's not a problem. On the story Ang was trying to tell, that development would not have helped but that's fine because it can be fully exploited in a sequel.



Bruce would go through a host of emotions. perhaps, although banner never showed any signs of fear towards the hulk (shock at best but not fear), so it brings reason to the fact banner in the films doesn't hate his hulk persona or wish to relenquish it from his persona, nor does he have reason to. choking in human mode i feel isn't a strong enough reason to wish to get rid of his other self. Nor was the extent of any of the damage banner caused really examined by bruce so how would he know the depths of what the hulk's destruction, he simply doesn't have the motivation during the time span of the film.

If left to wander and come to terms with what the hulk has done, then yes but he's never left to get on with that so how he go through those emotions?


He had reason to fear the Hulk. Look at what happened at the first transformation. He wrecked the lab. ?banner never knew the extent of the damage he caused, nor did he ever find out about the car, one can't be held responsible for actions they don't know have been commited.




The father-son dynamic for one.
i don't even know where this goes back to referring about.


I went in to see a good film, and you're right, that wasn't what I got.

you're going to make me cry....


But as Cracker Jack reminded me- Bruce does say in the film that he intended to isolate and destroy the Hulk. How did you miss that?
wasn't that before his first transformation while talking to his father on the phone? i'm not sure, i'll get back to you on that one. I thought that scene was before he had realised that there was even a HUlk to begin with.


But about the self-loathing- .again the mental journeys the hulk takes aren't examined in the first film, they aren't even really addressed which i feel is fine because these can be examined more thoroughly in a sequel. Given the situations he was in during the first film, time for self examination i feel would have been on a back burner in preference to getting through the ordeal he had found himself in.

it's that simple thought of if you keep yourself busy enough with other external things, it takes the time from dealing with internal traumas.

i mean even in spidey 2, ben only gets the chance to face up to aunt may about his uncle's death when he no longer has the responsibilities of being spidey.

all this time and it's all off topic, dammit...

Odin's Lapdog
05-18-2006, 09:04 AM
right dragon, if you want any real kinda proper chat on this i suggest we do it on AOL because the lengths of these posts are getting incrediblly large.

my msn messenger address is in my signature, it's the only IM i have access to.

Cracker Jack
05-18-2006, 09:12 AM
wasn't that before his first transformation while talking to his father on the phone? i'm not sure, i'll get back to you on that one. I thought that scene was before he had realised that there was even a HUlk to begin with.


It was before the second Hulkout. He was talking to his dad. His dad wanted to harness it power but Bruce says he will isolate it and destroy it. His dad says I bet you and your Betty would love to destroy it, but could your really destroy part of yourself.

Just helpin out :D

Axl Rose
05-18-2006, 09:24 AM
http://www.foggydoggy.com/GHOSTBUST.gif

I vote this suit

Odin's Lapdog
05-18-2006, 10:53 AM
Watch the film again (I'm apologize for suggesting that). Bruce only begins transforming when David goes haywire and starts absorbing the electricity and then Ross tries to fry him. Then David grabs him and blasts them out of the facility. David then attacks him in order to absorb the Hulk's power. He's fighting out of self-defense.
that's my point, he turned into the hulk BEFORE his father did anything to him, so to suggest that bruce didn't turn into the hulk for self defensive reasons which is what you implied earlier, what happens after his initial transformation has no bearing on why the transformation occured itself.

So yep, one could say Bruce just wanted a piece of his father by the end of the film.



You're confusing coherent thought with instinct. Animals who can't reason can still find their way home or attack an object they know is a threat.
the coherency goes to the hulk being 'mindless' and i'm trying to show he's not.

nor do i feel the hulk's reactions were purely instinct in the film since as shown some of his actions did actually require relatively high levels of interlect.

and i'd like to see any animal who is 'moved' away from their home find their way back without any sensory bearings of where they have been taken.


That was in the script. The tank driver and the helicopter pilots would have died if there was any hint of reality. And I'm not saying the Hulk was totally mindless. I'm just making the point that He certainly doesn't do everything based on GUIDANCE from Bruce Banner. He functions on a combination of instinct and a very mininal amount of control from Bruce's subconscious.not everything, i've said before the last primary actions wished from bruce are generally fulfilled when the hulk emerges. Mindless in any shape or form i feel is an inacurate description of the creature seen on screen. At no point do i think his anger takes him to the mindless point.


Anyway, the Hulk not being able to speak tells you he wasn't really in control.
Well there isn't evidence to show he could or couldn't speak, rather he chose not to, especially considering he was able to communicate with the other part of his psyche.

but again, i don't know what point this is making :confused:


Dude, you need to read the comics. The transformation is to a point controlled. At least back to Banner. He either transforms because the danger is past, or a chemical agent causes the transformation (His gamma machine, certain gases, etc.). He can be unconscious and remain the Hulk. And whenever there's danger he'll immediately transform.
You're assigning comic logic to a creature on the screen which isn't anything like the one in the comics. Hulk's falling and is out cold, that signifies enough trigger a transformation for me and when danger is notified he transforms back.

Personally while transforming, i've thought that there have been people that have knocked out the hulk/banner and it's led him to reverting back into human state while out cold. Would you consider the half transformed being to stay like that until it regains consciousness then? just a question rather than anything else


We're see-sawing on this. There is a level of subconscious control and instinctive reaction on the Hulk's part. My point is that you're over-emphasizing the balance in the wrong areas. He doesn't go to save Betty because "Bruce controls him". He goes because Bruce knew she was in danger, and this sticks in the Hulk's mind after the transfromation. If Bruce were really in control, then he'd have transformed into the Hulk immediately after his father tells him that he's going to kill Betty, and not have waited until Talbot was beating him up.
i think we are on a similar page on this, it's just your interpretation of what i'm saying i think is stronger than intended. What i'm trying to get to is that the hulk has only been shown in his first transformation going off to fulfill his own demises and in no cases has he been 'mindless', he may have been deterred and reacted to them but he's still kept on track. That's the kinda of control i speak of.

If i were to transform into you, you'd probably get up and start doing something entirely different to what i'm doing because i have no bearing over your actions, while it's different for the hulk and bruce and that's what i'm trying to get accross that there is some sort of communication happening between these two beings or messages swapping from psyches and timed with fulfilling a certain criteria then calming down lead to hulk turning back into bruce. There is enough evidence to show a correlation.


If they had shown the transformation start, then you'd have a point. But they don't. The scene is just another misfire. It was just a way to wake the Hulk up so he wouldn't drown by not holding his breath.This is just as valid as mentioned earlier as your hulk protecting the civilians on the bridge.

Both scenes aren't shown but are implied. To take one and reject the other would be hypocritical yet you're reading into your scene and not into this one.



Fantasy-Adventure films are generally geared to a younger audience. If there was extensive nudity, sexual situations and less emphasis on action, cursing, and certain types of graphic violence, then it would be considered an adult film. And those films all had toy lines and video games.yeah they are but in this case i felt with the story that ang had to deal with, such a pitch woudl be detrimental to the film.

daredevil is not really far from the hulk with it's content, yet it allowed itself to be more gritty and set itself apart from being another marvel family film. The blade films again furthered this concept.

blade didn't have a toyline or a video game, nor did daredevil. hulk got clumped into the spidey/x-men/ff marketing family children oriented film media frenzy, you know same films that are endorsed by burger king and mcdonalds, those kinda films.

as a hulk fan, you should know that the story of turning into a monster and dealing with it should be a much darker tale rather than sold as fun for all, which i felt is what was attempted for the hulk. putting a wolf in sheep;s clothing and all.



I think you mean stigma- "stigmata" is what leaked from Jesus' wounds during the crucificxion.

Anyway, why shouldn't children be able to enjoy comic films? Stan Lee and his crew were smart enough to genreate characters that appealed to a wide range of ages. The movies should also reflect this.
yeah, i meant stigma (doesn't it derive from stigmata though), apologies

not all stories are meant for children though or can be truelly appreciated by a young developing mind. Perhaps i'm underestimating the younger viewer but i'm talking about the 5-6 year olds here, how can they relate to turning into the hulk, they have yet to truelly master the effects such a situation would really have on someone's life.

all this is not a fault of society but trying to maintain the innocence of childhood for our youngsters for far too long, longer than necessary by sugar coating life and not showing them the reality of what is to become if a certain series of choices are taken. but again, not a fault of the film on its own/


Would I love the power? yes. But not losing FULL control of my life. Not living like a fugitive.
well banner never lives like a fugitive as such, he's free in south america (which i think is where he is by the end of the film).

again the depths of his personality and dealing with his condition have yet to surface on the film, only the initial honeymoon period. he's still peter parker pre uncle ben death stage (closest analogy i can find). or something along those lines, his actions have yet to lead to the endangerment of close loved ones sufficiently to question his alter ego's existence.


And as far as comparing the Hulk and Kong films- yes you can. In fact, I firmly believe that Ang Lee was going for the Kong concept in his approach, which is why he made Bruce such a weak non-aggressive character. The point is, he failed, because that's not what the Hulk is supposed to be.
I feel the creatures of hulk and kong on paper are very similar but the characters we see on the screen aren't although i can understand why you could see them as being similar. Personally the relative screen time devoted to each and their roles in that time means i don't feel the same way.



Marketing only matters up until release. And the point is- that it succeeded. Everyone knew the Hulk was in theaters and the opening weekend reflects that. So, IF it was such a good movie, then the audience of folks such as yourself who loved it would have been able to find it and support it. The point i've been trying to make is that it suceeded by selling a film that wasn't the one people went into watch. If spidey advertised Wall to wall webslinging in all his adverts and only showed him do One swing, you'd feel somewhat cheated even if the rest of the film was fine. And that's with an open film. The hulk's not even to everyone's taste so how is that going to make people feel.



How is it that this wonderful film you guys are defending got poor word of mouth from EVERYONE? simply because it .. what? didn't have enough action? Didn't show the Hulk enough?? Cause.. The Hulk has as much screentime as Spider-Man, and both films have equal amounts of action. So if those folks love Spidey, they'd love the Hulk as well.

now i've never thought the hulk would be a film that everyone would take a love, so i was never expecting world wide love from it. Especially with the release of some initial screen caps that were slighltly dodgy (*cough*media'sfault*cough*) which i fear may have attributed to unsettling people about cgi hulk originally right from the get go.


actionwise, plenty of people on the hype wished for more action, i feel what was shown was sufficient. definitely though as a on-looker i would have expected more action/rage based carnage.

as for showing the hulk enough, perhaps the anticipation to seeing the character in question may have taken a while. the weight may have been too long and not worth it for some. one can imagine waiting a while to see the hulk only to have him on screen for only a few minutes. then have another wait...

the beginning of spidey was geared towards the life of spidey and the motivations of spidey, the hulk for all intenses and purposes is driven by what needs doign at that time. Fine bruce's build up was a little static but i suppose it was trying to show him as static and fairly unemotional. it's hard to feel for someone who doesn't feel for anything else around him.

plus spidey wasn't littered with complex storylines and motivations. Far more direct showing befores and after, cause and effect, heroism yadda yadday. Fine it got to it's point simpler and better for a movie go-er.


The Hulk had what the audience was expecting. It featured a superhuman character that did heroic things and it had plenty of action. Face it, what was there just wasn't any good. The story was incoherent and jumbled. The main character was boring and the villain was cheezy.
i feel other villains have come across more cheesy in films that have been received better, bar magneto, all other marvel villains have suffered from a piece of cheese some even more than david banner.

alright you feel it wasn't any good, i quite enjoyed it. fine

the thing is going back to the thread topic, having a incoherent and jumbled story with a boring main character a cheese villain and a real person as the hulk you feel would have positively effected it's box office takings enough for it to be seriously considered as an option, even though potential budgeting would have increased severely for the film and they may also have set the film back for extensive filming?



Back when the film was released I went extensively through the film expressing what I felt were its flaws. It's been a long time so I don't remember everything. But bascially the story went nowhere. I'll say again that I'm not a fan of mindless, pointless action. I wanted to see a powerful drama and psychological plot line. Yes, I wanted HUGE action where appropriate. In fact I think there was enough action scenes. The problem is that they, like the story were poorly realized. The Hulk dog fight wasn't big enough (Also, the Hulk dogs were a poor choice to begin with). 4 creatures with that much power locked in savage battle would have deximated the forest. The Tank and Chopper fights were slow and also not very spectacular. And the fight with David was nonsense. Again, poor chocie of villain, weak choreography.

i'll let these slide because it comes down to preference.

Only to a point. With the script they had, it wouldn't have helped very much. other than making the Hulk more relatable, and allowing for bigger action because they would have had to use less animation.
money wise how much financially would a studio have from getting a actor to STAR as the hulk (about 10 million on it's own minimum), build sets, costume designers, special effects people, stuntmen, film crew, director's fees, rather than getting a CGI team to take care of it. I'm only asking because i don't think it would be financially feasible.



Bruce wore prosthetic feet to keep him from injuring his own feet.
aw c'mon, it's not used to enhance a physical feature, only to protect, the use of prosthetics in die hard are different than trying to envision a creature not native to this planet normally.


To a point he does look like a hobbit. He has disproportionately large feet and hands. Granted, I wouldn't care if the actor had them or not, but this is the excuse so many folks use for why the Hulk had to be CGI.
interesting, not sure of your hobbit description though.



The CGI Hulk didn't have very great muscle mass. That's part of my point.
Secondly, you vary it per shot. At times you'd have to green screen the actor and increase his size digitally. At other times you use other teicks such as camera placements, making proportional props and so forth.
The reason many people are saying it would be better to go with a real human is purely because the CGI hulk was too big, now you say that they should keep the character at the same scale. The hulk would still be bigger than the 7 foot odd height you've reccommended for him in another thread.

as for the muscle mass, i felt it was sufficient, he just wasn't defined because the majority of the strongest people on this planet aren't defined, only a small small proportion of people who enter into strongman competitions are infact definted. So relative to them i felt his muscle proportions were decent.


Well first I'll list Superman. Lifting a helicopter. Lifting gigantic boulders. Re-directing a missile. In the new film he saves a plane. As for Lou, true, they didn't show him doing those things. But that's because the show didn't have the budget or inclination top make the Hulk that powerful. Remember bullets hurt him. But- if they wanted to show it, they could have. Just as they can show the CG Hulk lift a CG tank, they can show an actor do it.
reporter choppers are on the same scale as cars generally, not completely out of the way, certainly smaller than desert tanks.

How big was the boulder, i don't know what film you're talking about there

as for the missle, which film is it from, is it superman 3.

i said before i've yet to see the plane in action although more than likely that will come under scrutiny, so since we havent' seen it, we shouldn't use it as postive or negative evidence.

now the problem with a human throwing a tank is that a bodybuilder isn't a 'hammer thrower' (technique used by the hulk to throw the vehicle) and they aren't any professional hammer throwers that look like bodybuilders. so if trying to recreate the same scene you end up with a poorer looking scene purely based on the fact of replicating world class techniques by an amateur. the scene would have to be done in a different manner, i don't feel it could be replicated by humans (although a different method could indeed be better).


Just like there were inaccuracies with the CG Hulk tossing the tank.
not to do with scale though


You're trading one hassle for another. Animating the Hulk takes just as much time. And you can't say it would look silly with an actor. You're saying, what, that showing an actor punch or throw things would HAVE TO look bad? Just because YOU can't imagine how to shoot the scene doesn't mean it can't be done.This is what it comes down to, trading hassles. Isn't the devil you know better than the one you don't, especially with time and money on the mind?



The same way Lou created excitment on the series. People loved Bill Bixby and Lou for different reasons. And merely the sexiness factor creates an additional dimension. For example women fantasized about Lou because of the power and savagery of his character. Same would apply here.
sexiness? big men haven't been seen as sexy since the 80s, that whole massive muscle idealism has died way way down...#

crazy women. However as strange as this point is i'll let you have it, i however don't think it would draw in as much revenue based on sex appeal as you believe.



Well again, Absorbing Dad was a poor choice of villain. But- The hero can FIGHT CGI monsters- just as in LOTR the heroes fought the CG Ogres and other creatures.i thought ogres were men in costumes in general.

i haven't really watched LOTR and i'm personally not a fan of real battling cgi becoem most of the time it looks awkward but that again is personal preference, i feel an actor in battle should feed off something otherwise keep it all in cgi.



Marketing did correctly portray the film. Only you guys making excuses for it thinks they didn't. Bottom line, I and every one I know that didn't like the movie didn't walk out saying "That wasn't the movie the trailers and commercials suggested" We all said- That movie sucked. Period. Just as we thought films like Godzilla '98 sucked. Not the ads- THE MOVIE.
I'm not going round this circle again. Whatever, you win...


Yes.



Actually that's EXACTLY what it was. He makes his money doing CG animation. So if he said the man-in-suit route was the way to go, meaning he'd LOSE money, that means something. He's saying artistically, CG was too limited to generate a believable, relatable Hulk. And he's right. You can't compare characters like Gollum of Kong, because Kong is an ape, not a man- which the Hulk is expected to be. And Gollum is creepy, which the Hulk is NOT expected to be.You see that's where we differ, if he had said CGI wasn't the right way to go and stuck by his guns by not going ahead with the contract than fair enough, but to come in at the end and then comment on how he feels about CGI being an option then it just lowers his opinion from being a professional one.

if he felt that strongly about the hulk, he shouldn't have taken the job rather than make comments afterwards. Professionally, i wouldn't commit myself to doing a task i felt someone could do better.

the hulk is a primal CGI monster, why aren't comparisons to Kong feasible, or gollum, especially kong?

Odin's Lapdog
05-18-2006, 10:54 AM
It was before the second Hulkout. He was talking to his dad. His dad wanted to harness it power but Bruce says he will isolate it and destroy it. His dad says I bet you and your Betty would love to destroy it, but could your really destroy part of yourself.

Just helpin out :D
right, gotcha. danke...

Odin's Lapdog
05-18-2006, 11:15 AM
Sorry to jump in here and this is not a poke at you but this explains alot. Where do you know the Hulk from? The TV show and the movie? As a long time collector even though they botched up the origin, I think Ang got some aspects of the comic Hulk right. To me it will be a great day when they actually have the comic Hulk on screen.
limited comics, my own perception of what the character should be like and also the 90s cartoon which first series i thought put across a good portrayal of what would be expected of such a character.

the region of comics i have are around the death of betty ross by abomination and also a bit before when the hulk and banner seperated after onslaught.



This is one statment that makes me think you're starting to get an idea of who the Hulk is. However, The Hulk isn't doing something because Banner wants him to, he's doing it because it's something Banner would do. Eventhough they're different and hate each other, they are still the same. Again, not a poke at you. I think the whole control part of my explanations have been perhaps taking too literally. I see banner as parental role while hulk being the child of them two and while they may not see eye to eye hulk somewhere seems to respect the underlying wishes of bruce to a certain extent, but perhaps your views are better.


Right and wrong. The Hulk passed out from a lack of O2. He did recognize that Banner wouldn't survive and kill them both. But the Hulk took control because he wanted to be in control and save himself. That's my $0.02.
so you're saying the hulk;s actions were more selfish than trying to save the both of them, or even banner in particular?

well that's fine, i can accept that.


Can't is not in The Hulk vocabulary, actually, there's not a whole lot in the Hulk vocabulary. :) The reason the Hulk is INCREDBILE is because he can do the things that he shouldn't be able to do. Spider-man can lift a tram or stop a speeding train. Superman can do just about anything but the Hulk throwing a tank would look wrong because he's to small? C'on.
even the mightiest of comic characters are bound by reality (although some less than others).

no one is completely able to do anything, especially on film.

as for some of spidey's and supes' acts, that's moaning for another thread:o although both have had relatively smaller scaled feats to carry out. but again, that's just me.

Dragon
05-18-2006, 11:37 AM
I'm sorry, but IMO CGI is the ONLY way to go, a bodybuilder would look rediculous, you want reasons for CGI, here:

1) The Hulk is something unique and monstrous, he needs to look that way on film. A body builder would not capture that.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're not a professional, you don't know the limits of the technology. You're also not a director, and thus your lack of vision doesn't suggest what is and isn't possible.

2) The foundation is already layed down in the first movie, we need some continuity in the sequel.

Since that movie failed- obviously no one cares about what was established in the first film. Spidey 1 was a huge success, and even then the studio was ready to replace the STAR of the movie when things became problematic. They won't care about redesigning the Hulk.

3) In order for the action to be better in the sequel, bigger feats than throwing tanks, etc are needed, again a bodybuilder could not lift a frigging tank.

Really? And you think the CGI Hulk was lifting a tank?

4) Hellboy looked great, as did Abe Sapien, but Thing, Beast and Juggernaut all look less than average IMO. And they were all human-ish proportions, but when the proportions go bigger than this, we get Hyde out of LXG, who i thought looked bad, or we get CGI, in both Hellboy and LOTR, when the proportions got bigger than even the biggest human, PJ went with CGI.

You contradict yourself in this statement, and mkae it clear that it's not a question of prosthetics- but the DESIGN of the prosthetics. So- if the design team makes good looking prosthetics (Made simpler because it's only limbs) then we'll be okay.

5) Kong, the cgi now is much better than in 2003, so imagine it in 2008.

Kong is an ape. Apes are simpler creatures than humans. The Hulk is not an ape. Kong is covered with fur. Fur is easier to make appear real than human skin.

Cracker Jack
05-18-2006, 11:49 AM
limited comics, my own perception of what the character should be like and also the 90s cartoon which first series i thought put across a good portrayal of what would be expected of such a character.

the region of comics i have are around the death of betty ross by abomination and also a bit before when the hulk and banner seperated after onslaught...

Fair enough. You missed a lot of the good stuff :D

I think the whole control part of my explanations have been perhaps taking too literally. I see banner as parental role while hulk being the child of them two and while they may not see eye to eye hulk somewhere seems to respect the underlying wishes of bruce to a certain extent, but perhaps your views are better..

No my views arn't any better, just the way I see it. I think somewhere in his history The Hulk realized that he and Banner are one in the same. This is where the Jeckle and Hyde comparsion comes in. Banner hate the Hulk and The Hulk hates Banner. Both want control. If you get the chance, pick up The Inredible Hulk 227 “The Monster’s Analyst” here's a synopsis
http://www.leaderslair.com/noexcuses/hulk2-227.html

so you're saying the hulk;s actions were more selfish than trying to save the both of them, or even banner in particular?

well that's fine, i can accept that..

I grew up reading the Hulk. The Hulk I know hates Banner and like wise. It makes sense, isn't there a part in everyone that they hate?

even the mightiest of comic characters are bound by reality (although some less than others).

no one is completely able to do anything, especially on film.

as for some of spidey's and supes' acts, that's moaning for another thread:o although both have had relatively smaller scaled feats to carry out. but again, that's just me.

That's just it, the Hulk can do those things because he's The Incredible Hulk. We're talking about a comic universe and a movie based on a comic. The suspension of disbelief is already there. Or at least it shoud be.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-18-2006, 12:29 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. You're not a professional, you don't know the limits of the technology. You're also not a director, and thus your lack of vision doesn't suggest what is and isn't possible.

So i have to be a proffesional to know the limits of something. I am not a professional footballer, but i judge the limits of players, i am not a director, but i can judge whether a film is poor or not.



Since that movie failed- obviously no one cares about what was established in the first film. Spidey 1 was a huge success, and even then the studio was ready to replace the STAR of the movie when things became problematic. They won't care about redesigning the Hulk.

The movie didnt fail, it made money, not a huge sum, but a profit none the less. And what happened with SM2 was totally different, as Tobey, had a bad back/wanted more money depending on which story you believe.

Really? And you think the CGI Hulk was lifting a tank?

It looked like that to me on screen, it looked very real IMO, and i want to see more of that.



you contradict yourself in this statement, and mkae it clear that it's not a question of prosthetics- but the DESIGN of the prosthetics. So- if the design team makes good looking prosthetics (Made simpler because it's only limbs) then we'll be okay.

How did i contradict myself exactly? All i said that when it comes to putting a creature on screen, without human proportion, directors will use CGI.

Kong is an ape. Apes are simpler creatures than humans. The Hulk is not an ape. Kong is covered with fur. Fur is easier to make appear real than human skin.

Hulk is human like also, is he not referred to by casual movie goers as a 'big green man' in their interviews?

Anyway, i cant be bothered with another multipage debate with you Dragon, we got no were last time after pages of discussion, lets just say you have your views and i have mine.

Dragon
05-18-2006, 01:10 PM
So i have to be a proffesional to know the limits of something. I am not a professional footballer, but i judge the limits of players, i am not a director, but i can judge whether a film is poor or not.

You may be able to give your OPINION on football players. But you can't coach a team or tell them how they should play, and you certainly aren't qualified to say what a player's limits are.

Same with this. If you don't know what goes into making the prosthetics- how the art form has evolved over the many years its been in use. You can't identify its weaknesses. And moreover- this is an art like any other. There are going to be people who are better than other practitioners. For all you know, the people who did the work that you consider substandard might IN FACT BE SUBSTANDARD. They also might have improved their skills since the previous films. It certainly isn't as if there aren't substandard CG artists.

Or- for all you know they might have wanted to do better work, but were limited by budget or the vision of the director. For example, the tech who did the Thing's body suit said he wanted to make the Thing look more like the more familiar comic design, but TPTB didn't want that.

The movie didnt fail, it made money, not a huge sum, but a profit none the less. And what happened with SM2 was totally different, as Tobey, had a bad back/wanted more money depending on which story you believe.

Doesn't matter. The point is that Tobey was far more integral to the film than The Hulk was. Yet that change would have happened. And there's also a question about Eric Bana's involvement. Yet I don't see anyone saying they can't make the movie without him. And he's more important that the CG Hulk.

Say what you will, make whatever excuse you want, but the bottomline is that if the Hulk were a hit, the sequel would have already been made. Period.

It looked like that to me on screen, it looked very real IMO, and i want to see more of that.

And they can just as easily make it appear that an actor is lifting a tank. IT'S ALL DONE FREAKIN' DIGITALLY ANYWAY. How is that so hard for you guys to grasp? Again, maybe you don't understand how, but they can. Just as they made it look like Spider-Man was holding up a tram car.

And I'll say something else- if you think the Hulk looked real- then you'll definitely be fooled by an actor if the production team is on point. Because NEVER did the Hulk look real to me. I'm not saying that to insult the movie, or anyone who loves the movie. I'm being totally sincere.

And I really think that the only issue many of you have with an actor playing the hulk is that you can't get the image of the TV show out of your heads. It doesn't have to look that way. A TV show made on less than a fraction of the ,movie budget (The entire 4 seasons cost less almost half of the price of the movie) made more than twenty years ago does not define the limits of what can be done TODAY.

How did i contradict myself exactly? All i said that when it comes to putting a creature on screen, without human proportion, directors will use CGI.

Because you said how some actors in prosthetics looked good, but they still can't make the Hulk look good. And using Hyde as an explame is nuts. His ridiculous proportions were made because that's how they wanted him to look- not because that's the only way they could make the. This underlines my first point, that you just don't understand how the process works.

Hulk is human like also, is he not referred to by casual movie goers as a 'big green man' in their interviews?

THAT'S MY POINT. He's human- not an ape. So he needs a HUMAN to play him.

Anyway, i cant be bothered with another multipage debate with you Dragon, we got no were last time after pages of discussion, lets just say you have your views and i have mine.

I know. You guys here love to go on for pages ranting your opinions, yet when someone challenges them, you can't deal. I just wanted to see you people back up your "informed" opinions. But I agree that there's no point in debating this endlessly.

Via Con Dios

Cracker Jack
05-18-2006, 01:37 PM
And there's also a question about Eric Bana's involvement. Yet I don't see anyone saying they can't make the movie without him. And he's more important that the CG Hulk.

HA!!! I heard it. "If Bana doesn't come back they shouldn't even make a sequel." That and the same if Jennifer Connley s/p? doesn't come back as Betty. Sheesh!!

I disagree that Banner is more important than The Hulk. He is key, CGI or man in a suit, if they mess it up the end result will make the first movie look the masterpiece many claim it to be. This is one of my bigest fears. If the sequel, with a man in a suit, body builder painted green or a combination of all three, fails. We'll never hear the end of it. Ang will rule the world and all us that didn't love Angs movie will be hunted down and forced to watch Angs movie 24/7. :eek:

Say what you will, make whatever excuse you want, but the bottomline is that if the Hulk were a hit, the sequel would have already been made. Period.

I agree but disagree. You're right, if the first movie was a hit, we'd be about a month away from the premier. However, I don't think the first movie was a flop or did it completely suck. I think the story was bad and the changes they made to the Hulk will always kill me, but the movie was not catwoman or Dare Devil bad. Then again, that's just my opinion.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-19-2006, 04:49 AM
Well, Dragon, i'll just say this, i disagree with all of your points. I'm not going to elaborate on it because last time when i 'backed up' my points, we were in discussion for pages and pages and got no were.

Dragon
05-19-2006, 09:41 AM
Well, Dragon, i'll just say this, i disagree with all of your points. I'm not going to elaborate on it because last time when i 'backed up' my points, we were in discussion for pages and pages and got no were.

You discuss things for pages and pages anyway. You constantly post here about the same things, so what's the point? You can only "back things up" when you know others will agree with you?

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-19-2006, 11:31 AM
You discuss things for pages and pages anyway. You constantly post here about the same things, so what's the point? You can only "back things up" when you know others will agree with you?

For one, stop having a go at me for something you do yourself, you have just had a discussion pages long with someone else, so your a hypocrite. And two, i always back up my arguments whether people agree with me or not. I backed up my opinions plenty last time when everyone else had left the thread to leave us to it. I cant be bothered this time because i dont have the time.

Dragon
05-19-2006, 01:29 PM
I responded backwards- so your last post is being responded to first.

that's my point..

Just because David isn't attacking him at that second- doesn't mean that Bruce didn't know FOR SURE that David intended to kill him- their dialogue makes that clear. And David was certainly creating a dangerous situation that would theoretically lead to Bruce's death (It didn't only because the electricity couldn't kill him anyway)- So Bruce was absolutely transforming because of David's attack. And - YOU'RE the one that implied that Bruce didn't change for self-defense reasons, not me. You said in an earlier post that the Hulk fighting his father was him carrying out Bruce's objective. I said he merely defends himself against his father's attack- Not fulfills any wish of Bruce's.


So yep..

If his father had simply left him there and the Hulk followed then your point would be made. But that's not what happens. David snatches Bruce away with him.

the coherency goes....

He has flashes of coherency and reasoning. But he clearly can't reason, because if he could, his first response wouldn't be to fight his attackers. And- again- he'd be able to speak.

and i'd like to see any animal...

Actually there's a very famous story about a dog whose family moves cross country. He gets separated from them, and manages to travel across country to find them. They made a goofy Disney movie about it.

not everything..

If it were merely about fulfilling Bruce's wishes he could have done things in a non-violent way. For example, he didn't have to kill the dogs to protect Betty. He could've taken her away. Same deal with the army. He could've just left. He didn't have to fight them. He fought them on instinct, not a plan of Bruce's. And- just so we're clear that it wasn't Bruce's wishes- again- in each situation he could have made the transformation occur on his own. He didn't have to be held under house arrest- He didn't have to be placed in the fluid tube(He even endures Talbot's beating him). He didn't have to be strapped to the dynamo. He allowed this because his reaction isn't inherently aggressive.

Well there isn't evidence...

He would've spoke if he could. He would've uttered something when the choppers were facing him. He would've said something to Betty.

but again, i don't know..

Because, if Bruce were in control of the Hulk, he'd be able to communicate. Bruce is a man of intellect. His first response is to reason.

You're assigning comic logic...

I know. The comic logic is superior. Another knock against the movie.

Hulk's falling and is out cold

It doesn't. There are ground rules with the character.
Just like he can leap for miles, just like he can toss 50 ton tanks, he doesn't transform naturally back to Banner while still in danger- EVEN IF UNCONSCIOUS. There are tons of comic stories that display and explain this. He makes the change because he knows the Hulk is no longer needed. When he feels secure. Not just because he's unconscious. If that were the case, he'd have been killed off many years ago.

Personally while transforming, i've thought that there have been people that have knocked out the hulk/banner and it's led him to reverting back into human state while out cold. Would you consider the half transformed being to stay like that until it regains consciousness then? just a question rather than anything else

Well, like anything else over a 44 year run there are glitches and mistakes. But the standard shows that as long as he's still in danger, Banner maintains the Hulk persona. I can think of numerous times off the top of my head when he was gassed unconscious(Hulk #171-172), blasted unconscious (Hulk 168-169), And even voluntarily laid down to sleep (Hulk #180) all without changing. And if I went through my collection I could find many more.

And this is also a hint about Banner's control. It isn't direct- its subtle.


This is just as valid as mentioned earlier as your hulk protecting the civilians on the bridge.

Okay.. I responded to these posts backwards- so I'll address this point now.

I guess you forgot two key scenes from the Goldengate scene-

1. The raptors nearly hit a civilian chopper- suggesting that the military simply sent them in without first clearing the area of civilians- thus showing the recklessness I mentioned.

2. In the shot when the jet is about to hit the bridge, you can clearly see a number of civilian cars directly in his path.

So yes, the point I'm making IS shown. But- it isn't shown effectively- because... It's not a well made film.

daredevil is not really...

Even though they might be dark and gritty, the ideology and tone were simplistic and the action somewhat juvenile, so they really were directed toward children. Same with the Hulk. Hollywood has developed a type of approach to blockbusters that's "half & Half" partially geared toward adults, partially geared to children. Or maybe they appeal to the child-like nature in adults. Also, in our society these days, adults are more able to express child-like tendencies than say, 40 + years ago. Films like Blade Runner or 2001 are examples of fantasy films that were really adult oriented. But the Marvel films- ALL OF THEM havbe been geared toward kids and teens. And it's understandable to a point. These movies cost lots of monoey and they need the family audience to make their money back. And again Marvel comics has always been about reaching the various age groups, not just one.

There is a way that the Hulk could have been a completely adult film (Spidey, X-men too for that matter). But they'd have to be darker with less emphasis on heroism and more on the pshchological and societal ramifications. More subtle, less about saving the world and so forth. Less about a villain popping up just in time for the hero to ssave the day. For example, the Hulk would have been totaly about Bruce's journey of finding himself. any battles with villains and so forth would either be symbolic, or incidental.

blade didn't have a toyline or a video game, nor did daredevil.

Blade and DD did have toylines- I've seen them. Do an internet search, you'll find them. They might not have been marketed as largely as some other toylines, but then, they were lower-budgeted films.

as a hulk fan..

It's not a point of it being dark. The Crow was dark and it's one of my favorite films. It's simply that the Hulk didn't have a strong script. Too many plot points that go nowhere. Too many clunky scenes. Too much emphasis on the wrong things. Ang Lee neither did a strong psychological drama, nor a summer blockbuster. And rightfully, based on the source material, the Hulk should have had a strong mix of both.

yeah, i meant stigma (doesn't it derive from stigmata though)

No it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. I'm certainly no English major.

not all stories are meant...

The Hulk was my favorite character when I was little. I started following him regulary at the age of 8. If anything, the concept of the Hulk is perfect for a child, since he fulfills the fantasy of defiance of oppressors (parents, teachers, older siblings, bullies) by pure, childlike, brute force. Whenever someone bugged me, I wished I could transform into the Hulk and squash them.

all this is not a fault..

It's a fault of the film because that's further evidence that Ang Lee didn't get what the Hulk was about, and that he's not right for creating a summer blockbuster. It would honestly be a walk in the park to make a Hulk film that's both intelligent, dramatic, and fun. It's easy with ANY Marvel film with so much source material. With each of these franchises I could personally in minutes come up with a concept for a great film. Not because I'm a genius, but just because all the groundwork has been laid down . That's why the FF and DD films as well infuriate me. It's just not that hard to come up with good material with 40 YEARS of work to base it on.

well banner ..

Of course he's a fugitive. Ross is clearly still after him at the end. And he's not where he wants to be- with Betty working on his scientific theories.

again the depths...

Again, that's just the problem. The film should have focused on those things from the beginning; Not his dad's nuttiness and not shots of desert flora. Ang Lee didn't have to use that script. In fact, he and his partner James Schamus wrote the script. But anway, your analogy is off just because- Bruce's psychological issues are exactly why he becomes the Hulk, as opposed to say something similar to Doc Samson. His inner rage- his unresolved issues from childhood created the Hulk persona.


I feel the creatures..

I DON'T see them as similar. I'm saying that Ang Lee does and he mistakenly structured the Hulk movie to be like Kong. Kong represents the purity and power of nature that Man chooses wrongly to attempt to control. Yeh, there's the beauty & beast theme, but that's only surface stuff.

The Hulk originally was meant to reflect Jekyll and Hyde and frankenstein. Ma'n's relentless pursuit to better himself turned back on him. Or more directly, he's the military's lust for power to back on them. That's why it was such a big mistake to remove the Gamma bomb. The Hulk is a bomb on two legs, essentially there to punish the military.

The psychological issues that were later developed are perfectly in-line with all of this. But Ang Lee missed all of the best material- all of the meat of the Hulk character. That's why I found the film disappointing. Not because it wasn't mindless action- not because I didn't "get" what Lee was trying to do and certainly not because the movie wasn't what the ads presented.


The point i've been trying

Spider-Man was advertised to have as much action as the Hulk trailers. and it HAD as much action as the Hulk. I don't think Spider-Man was a great film. I don't think ANY Marvel film has been great. But at least the two Spidey flicks and X flicks have managed to be fun, entertaining and with stories that fall reasonably into place. The Hulk was a mish-mash. Daredevil was over-the-top, unconvincing and clumsy.

now i've never thought the hulk

The Hulk is a beloved character. One of Marvel's most recognizable. He has a great blend of drama, humor and spectacular action that could easily translate perfectly to the screen. And had he been written as more than a big pet, then the audience would have connected with him.

actionwise..

For me it a balancing thing. I don't think there needed to be more action scenes- just that they needed to be bigger and faster moving. And we needed better villains than Hulk Dogs and Absorbing Dad.

as for showing the hulk

Again, they showed about as much Hulk as was needed. It wasn't the number of appearances, but the quality of them, that was lacking.

the beginning of spidey

Plain and simple: Tell what the Hulk is about. Again, there's enough material so that Ang Lee didn't have to deviate from it as much as he did. The Hulk is about Bruce Banner and his psychological issues. not experiments his father made and the interests and disinterests of the military. Those are subplots. The story has to begin and end with Bruce Banner.

plus spidey wasn't littered with complex storylines and motivations.

Neither was the Hulk. The storylines weren't complex, but very simplistic. And not thorough. His father put himself at risk for his work. Same as Norman Osborn. Bruce was emotionless. Okay. But that's not enough. You have to show that underneath, he's longing to express his feelings for Betty. that way the audience can connect with him.

i feel other villains have come across more cheesy
Cheesy in other ways maybe, but not more cheesy. Nolte's over-acting and silliness made the character a joke.

the thing is going back to the thread topic

Yes & no. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see the movie as is even if there was an actor playing the Hulk. But- It might have made more money just because people would have wanted to see the actor. Lots of people go to see Spider-Man just for Tobey Maguire- not because they really care about Spider-Man.

money wise how much financially

10 million? Only if the actor were already a big star. Tobey got more in the range of 3 million for the first Spidey, and he was already fairly well known.

But money is saved by not having animators spending hours makking the Hulk point and scratch his butt. Spending HUNDREDS of hours rendering animation.
You'd still be using digital models of tanks and planes, but not having to animate the Hulk on top of that. And aesthetically, that the Hulk doesn't look like CGI.

aw c'mon

The point is, that no one said "His feet look fake!" And his being barefoot was integral to the story. They're not going to be doing any long shots focusing on the Hulk's feet either. So he'd look convincing.


interesting, not sure of your hobbit description though.

Well, in the shot of him standing facing Betty in San Fran, he looked like a big elf to me with the big hands and feet.

The reason many people are saying

I never said keep him the same scale. In the movie he ranged from 9-15 feet, which is too big right out of the gate. Making the Hulk appear between 7-8 ft. is quite enough.

as for the muscle mass, i felt it was sufficient

First of all, you must know that their reason for not defining the Hulk wasn't due to the look of strong men. Olympic weight lifters and such don't look like the Hulk did. They tend to be bulkier with far less defined muscles. Many have large guts and so forth. This doesn't mean they aren't fit, they're just not defined like Body Builders because tey use their muscles differently.

The reason they didn't define that Hulk as much as some comic aritists is becuse for one thing, alot of the muscles that Keown and other artists gave him don't even exist. And the Hulk would've looked ridiculous if they actually tried to make all that muscle move- not to mention how much MORE time it would take to animate that type of musculature.

reporter choppers

Reporter choppers are longer than cars. The boulders were in Superman 1 when he was stopping the flood. They were far larger than he was. As for the missiles, I was referring to Supes 1. But it doesn't matter. This is all nitpicking to the umpteenth degree. The point is they can make it appear that a normal sized man is lifting a tank. The trick is in making the object appear weighty in areas not supporting by the character and having the character make an effort to achieve proper leverage, based on their strength and size level. For example- we know the Hulk can lift a large sized car with one hand, and it wouldn't be any strain for him. Nearly the way we could lift a football. So the point is in presenting all the proper mechanics. How, when the hulk grabs the car, the car will sink on its shock as he puts the pressure down. How much of the body would crumple as his hands dug in to grip it. How if he lifts from the front the rear of the car would dip a bit as he balanced it.

now the problem

That's an unbelievable nitpick. First, I personally wouldn't have done that scene. It looked like something from a Popeye cartoon. But, if you think any athlete couldn't mimmick the movements of a hammer throw after some rehearsal you need to try it. Afterall, he isn't trying to win an olympic gold medal. You're comparison is like saying that because Uma Thurman doesn't really know how to use a samurai sword, she couldn't appear to cut someone's head off in Kill Bill. Yeah, for me as a martial artist, I can see that she sucks at martial arts. But the film can still be entertaining to general audiences.

not to do with scale though

Actually, the inaccuracy was worse- attempting to have the hulk lift the entire tank by the cannon. It would have broken apart before he could toss it. And as far as scale- no it wasn't accurate- because a fifteen foot object couldn't balance a 100 ton tank that way. But it's also fantasy, and can be forgiven on either level.

This is what it comes down to

And CG is the devil they know? They said constantly how they were breaking new ground and doing revolutionary and experimental things on the Hulk. The Actor would've been the devil-you-know.

sexiness?

Dude, anybody thrust into the limelight is sexy. There's nothing special about many of the actors and actresses that are seen as "hot". I mean, Maxim just made freakin' Eva Longoria their number one hot chick. Don't get me wrong. Eva is very good looking but there are definitely hotter women out there. But she's on a popular tv show and has a sexy image. Same here. I'm not saying whoever they cast as the Hulk would be considered sexy just because of his build- i'm saying he'd be considered sexy because he's the Hulk. Women would be fantasizing about him busting out of his clothes and busting them out of theirs. Again, not possible with a CG character.

crazy women

The words crazy and woman are synonymous.

i thought ogres were men in costumes in general.

You're thinking of Orks. The Ogre was the giant creature they fought in the cave/cathedral where all the Dwarves were killed. He had a whip and chain, and appeared to kill Frodo. And Legolas killed him by shooting him in the throat with an arrow. There were more of the in Two Towers and I think ROTK.

You see that's where we differ..

He would have been wrong to say it when the Hulk was in production- because him saying that would mean his losing his job, and possibly his crew losing theirs. Anyway- they weren't asking him for his opinion then. they simply presented him with a task and he fulfilled it to the best of his ability. And obviously folks like yourself think he did a good job.

He made the statement when asked about his involvement in the sequel, which was his being honest.

the hulk is a primal CGI monster, why aren't comparisons to Kong feasible, or gollum, especially kong?

Kong is an ape, not a human. Gollum is a supproting character. The Hulk is a primal HUMAN. And the main character. Gollum and even Kong were there to generate reactions from the main characters. The Hulk is meant to carry the film. But Lee made the Hulk like Kong and Gollum. A supproting character, another huge mistake in a long string of them.

Dragon
05-19-2006, 01:31 PM
For one, stop having a go at me for something you do yourself, you have just had a discussion pages long with someone else, so your a hypocrite. And two, i always back up my arguments whether people agree with me or not. I backed up my opinions plenty last time when everyone else had left the thread to leave us to it. I cant be bothered this time because i dont have the time.

I wasn't being hypocritical. I didn't say its anything wrong with having a long drawn out debate. I was saying that you're being hypocrtical for saying you don't have time to post for several pages when you do anyway.

But- I'm in agreement with you that this is going nowhere and better left alone.

Odin's Lapdog
05-19-2006, 01:33 PM
dragon, i give up. you can save yourself some time and not bother replying. although i applaud you for taking the effort to do so.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-20-2006, 08:12 AM
Anyway back on topic, i wouldnt mind them using animatonics for the Hulks hands when he's picking up Betty, or something like that, but i would prefer if they just stuck with CGI for the most part.

The Kid
05-20-2006, 04:22 PM
yeah... Im not reading all this long argument about cgi vs some bodybuilder in costume. Its clear to me which is the best option.

Stay tuned true believers. I'm working on something I think might interest you all...

XCharlieX
05-23-2006, 12:50 AM
I think the CGI in hulk is underrated... sure cgi wont ever be truly perfect spot on, but that was pretty darn good.

They took the sheer mass and stature aspect of the character and made a King Kong-esque type of film and i understood that aspect of it.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-23-2006, 05:11 AM
So did i XCharlieX, it was obvious that Kong and Jekyll and Hyde were strong influences on the movie version.

Sava
05-23-2006, 05:40 AM
you guys seen this before?... i was just searching for Hulk pics from the movie and i got this http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Sarva/Hulk_Movie_Idea_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Sarva/Hulk_TestA.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Sarva/Bridge-kc.jpg

the last one would have been awesome IMO, i dont know if these were done by someone using photosop or not, but these look good.

Odin's Lapdog
05-23-2006, 05:42 AM
the first one, but not the last two...perhaps they are concept drawings...

the second one is really nice. the hulk looks too big (or the bridge looks too small in the second one)

Sava
05-23-2006, 05:47 AM
yeah, Hulk's way too big, i want to see the other posters Universal had in mind for THe Hulk :(

Dragon
05-23-2006, 11:51 AM
The second poster looks kinda body builderish ;) :cool:

Odin's Lapdog
05-23-2006, 11:53 AM
it looks like a real body on top of a cgi head.

Odin's Lapdog
05-23-2006, 11:54 AM
yeah, Hulk's way too big, i want to see the other posters Universal had in mind for THe Hulk :(
didn't you buy the usual 'conceptual art for the HUlk' book that normally comes out when these films do?

or was there none released for the hulk...

Sava
05-23-2006, 11:56 AM
didn't you buy the usual 'conceptual art for the HUlk' book that normally comes out when these films do?

or was there none released for the hulk...
i have no ida thy even did those kinds of book

Odin's Lapdog
05-23-2006, 11:59 AM
waaaaaa :eek:

check out virgin or hmv or any mainstream bookstore like blackwells, conceptual art books are bound to be around for x3.

normally quite large books.

Sava
05-23-2006, 12:06 PM
will do :up:...thanks

Dragon
05-23-2006, 12:19 PM
it looks like a real body on top of a cgi head.

Or a CG head atop a real body. Which is how it should be ;)

They could make the actor's face look that way with prosthetics- which is actually just a mutation of Bana's face anyway.

Odin's Lapdog
05-23-2006, 12:22 PM
i always thought that the hulk never really resembled bana in the slightest...

Dragon
05-23-2006, 12:39 PM
He was modeled after Bana's face. Just muscled up and expanded. I think they should even allow Bana to act as the Hulk in close-up, the way they set up for Andy what's-his-name to do Kong's facial expressions.

Odin's Lapdog
05-23-2006, 12:43 PM
it still never looked like him to me though :o

Amm-arD
05-23-2006, 01:52 PM
you guys seen this before?... i was just searching for Hulk pics from the movie and i got this


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/Sarva/Bridge-kc.jpg

the last one would have been awesome IMO, i dont know if these were done by someone using photosop or not, but these look good.

nice find! Some may say the proportions are wrong on this one, but i think its the best one! A truly lovely piece of art!

Odin's Lapdog
05-24-2006, 04:46 AM
it is a nicest pic, but the proportions are still off on it, he looks bigger than the helicopters and considering that he was under half the size of that in the film, it does look off putting.

perhaps they thought of even making him bigger than his largest size on screen.

Sava
05-24-2006, 05:31 AM
that poster with the Hulk in his right size would have been better than what we got IMO, not that what we got was crap or anything

Odin's Lapdog
05-24-2006, 06:01 AM
yeah, anyone would any decent manipulation photoshop skills, now is your time to shine...

:o:o


ps, you can also add some f22 raptors to the background if ya wanted

:o:D

Dragon
05-24-2006, 12:58 PM
A couple questions-

First, what do these posters have to do with the subject of the thread?

Second and more important- You guys go on about how the Evil Marketing Department ruined the movie. Yet you guys endorse a poster that is completely aginst what the movie is about.

1. Aside from the Hulk's size being wrong- the proportions are completely different from the CGI Hulk. His head is tiny, his upper body is too big- his ARMS are bigger than his LEGS, and the overall muscularity is wrong.

2. It gives the idea that the film's major battle takes place on the bridge and that wanton destruction (re: "mindless violence") is taking place there.

So- isn't this something that would have misled the audience?????

Sava
05-24-2006, 03:29 PM
A couple questions-

First, what do these posters have to do with the subject of the thread?

Second and more important- You guys go on about how the Evil Marketing Department ruined the movie. Yet you guys endorse a poster that is completely aginst what the movie is about.

1. Aside from the Hulk's size being wrong- the proportions are completely different from the CGI Hulk. His head is tiny, his upper body is too big- his ARMS are bigger than his LEGS, and the overall muscularity is wrong.

2. It gives the idea that the film's major battle takes place on the bridge and that wanton destruction (re: "mindless violence") is taking place there.

So- isn't this something that would have misled the audience?????

that poster with the correct Hulk from the movie would have been great. I dont think the bridge will say anything other than this takes place in San Fran. The action bit you're right about.

Dragon
05-27-2006, 03:06 AM
Having seen X-men tonight, the man-in-suit thing can work. Beast and Juggernaut looked fine, and Kelsey Grammer showed how a good actor can get you into the character.

Van Petrol
05-27-2006, 11:54 AM
They've gone with CGI now, might as well stick with it.

Sava
05-27-2006, 02:44 PM
Having seen X-men tonight, the man-in-suit thing can work. Beast and Juggernaut looked fine, and Kelsey Grammer showed how a good actor can get you into the character.
i still havent seen it, seeing as how the only Man in suit thing we got so far being F4, i doubt they got the best out of it. How good were Juggy and Beast?

storyteller
05-27-2006, 03:12 PM
They can do a man in suit as long as its bana for close ups. By scaling the environment down they can do it. I'm saying like of all the hulk scenes. 20-30% be man in suit and the rest be simply cgi. Hulk 1 had near perfect cgi. The only times it screwed up was when they had hulk a flippen 2 story in proportion to somebody(aka betty).

Dragon
05-27-2006, 03:48 PM
i still havent seen it, seeing as how the only Man in suit thing we got so far being F4, i doubt they got the best out of it. How good were Juggy and Beast?

Juggernaut was written stupidly. But he looked dangerous. Beast was a highlight of the movie. In action he was really cool. Just to pass along the info, the movie wasn't great. Now on the opposite end of the spectrum, the CGI for Iceman totally iced-up looked pretty cool as well (no oun intended).

The X-men films are a pretty good balance for use of make-up and CGI.

Atomicchuck3k
05-29-2006, 09:21 AM
A body suit transformed Drummer Travis Barker from this:

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/7369/travisbarker0ah.png http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/5883/travisb0048jl.jpg http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/9696/travisb0055rr.jpg

To this....

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/5968/travisb0035tq.jpg http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/9411/travisb0066tl.jpg http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7273/travisb0023mb.jpg

Odin's Lapdog
05-29-2006, 09:55 AM
why was he in a body suit?

Atomicchuck3k
05-29-2006, 09:57 AM
A huge man with the right body suit making him even bigger would also work.

Here's my pick's for Creature Casting:

Dalip Singh / Abomination

Wrestler: Dalip Singh

Real Name:Dalip Singh

Birthday:August 27, 1972

Hometown:India

Marital Status:

Height & Weight: 7'3" - 408 lbs

Trained by:All Pro Wrestling

Debut:October 7, 2000

Previous Gimmicks:Giant Singh (Japan)

Finishing Move:Power Bomb

Favorite Moves:Choke Slam

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5367/dalipsingh5pg.pnghttp://img530.imageshack.us/img530/1732/dalipsingh025en.png

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6360/dalipsingh031yj.png



Bob Sapp / The Incredible HULK

BOB SAPP

U.S.A. / Team Beast / American Football

COUNTRY : U.S.A.

DATE OF BIRTH : September 22, 1974

HEIGHT : 6 feet 7 inch
WEIGHT : 335 lbs

*TITLES*

37th IWGP Heavyweight Champion '04
K-1 WORLD GP 2005 in HIROSHIMA Champion

*BOUT RESULTS*

K-1 17 Fights 10 Wins 6 Losses 1 Draw 6 KOs
MMA 10 Fights 8 Wins 2 Losses
Wrestling 10 Fights 8 Wins

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/842/bobsapp4yw.png http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/1166/bobsapp046sk.png http://img49.imageshack.us/img49/8246/bobsapp050qp.png

Put these 2 guys in Body Suits to make them wider...hands, feet larger and BAM!

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7008/bobdalip4wh.png

Atomicchuck3k
05-29-2006, 10:10 AM
why was he in a body suit?

It was a T-Mobile commercial.

Iron Man™
05-29-2006, 03:46 PM
Cgi

terry78
05-29-2006, 09:18 PM
The Hulk is not just tall, he's wide. Much wider than the biggest bodybuilder. About three grown men wide. CG is the only option.

Atomicchuck3k
05-29-2006, 09:34 PM
The Hulk is not just tall, he's wide. Much wider than the biggest bodybuilder. About three grown men wide. CG is the only option.

Thats why I suggested body suits on the two big guys I selected. That will give them the additional mass they need. CG will just run into the same problem as the first movie, corny looking. The actors in suits will give a much more convincing performance then any computer generated character. CG can be used to make the actors taller and even wider, but 100% will not be as believable. The concept of live actors in body suits combined with CG worked in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (Hyde).

Dragon
05-29-2006, 09:59 PM
The Hulk is not just tall, he's wide. Much wider than the biggest bodybuilder. About three grown men wide. CG is the only option.

The CG Hulk in the film wasn't anywhere near that wide. His proportions weren't too exaggerated but for his big hands and feet.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-30-2006, 06:56 AM
The CG Hulk in the film wasn't anywhere near that wide. His proportions weren't too exaggerated but for his big hands and feet.

Your joking right? Watch the scene were he rugby tackles the first tank in the desert, he is nearly as wide as the tank.

CGI is the only way to go for a character with the proportions of the Hulk. Jesus, next you guys will be saying that Galactus should be a man in a suit in an FF movie.

Dragon
05-30-2006, 08:56 AM
Your joking right? Watch the scene were he rugby tackles the first tank in the desert, he is nearly as wide as the tank.

CGI is the only way to go for a character with the proportions of the Hulk. Jesus, next you guys will be saying that Galactus should be a man in a suit in an FF movie.

He's also taller than the tank. That doesn't mean that he's proportionally the width of THREE MEN.

As for Galatcus. Have you EVER SEEN Galactus????? His proportions are easily that of a normal muscular man. Show me where his proportions are abnormal.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-30-2006, 09:50 AM
He's also taller than the tank. That doesn't mean that he's proportionally the width of THREE MEN.

Well considering the tank was about the width of five or six men, i think Hulk is easily that.

As for Galatcus. Have you EVER SEEN Galactus????? His proportions are easily that of a normal muscular man. Show me where his proportions are abnormal.

Show you were his proportions are abnormal? How about the fact that he is the size of a ****ing sky scraper!!!!!!!!!, oh yes, really normal.

Dragon
05-30-2006, 10:17 AM
Well considering the tank was about the width of five or six men, i think Hulk is easily that.



Show you were his proportions are abnormal? How about the fact that he is the size of a ****ing sky scraper!!!!!!!!!, oh yes, really normal.

Do you know what the word proportion means? It means not just size, but size in relation to other measurement.

Galactus is very tall- but he's not disproportionately built. Even though he's thirty feet tall, he's in the proportion of a man that's say 6' 3" and muscular. His arms, legs, head and torso are all in even proportion.

As for the Hulk- at FIFTEEN friggin' feet tall, yes, he's probably the width of 3 to 4 men. But if he were say 6-7 ft. with the same proportions, he'd only be about the width of 1.5 to 2 men at MOST. The only thing disproportionate is the Hulk's hands and feet.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-30-2006, 12:33 PM
Do you know what the word proportion means? It means not just size, but size in relation to other measurement.

Galactus is very tall- but he's not disproportionately built. Even though he's thirty feet tall, he's in the proportion of a man that's say 6' 3" and muscular. His arms, legs, head and torso are all in even proportion.

As for the Hulk- at FIFTEEN friggin' feet tall, yes, he's probably the width of 3 to 4 men. But if he were say 6-7 ft. with the same proportions, he'd only be about the width of 1.5 to 2 men at MOST. The only thing disproportionate is the Hulk's hands and feet.

Course i know what proportionate means, i'm 2 frigging 4 years of age. Hulk, even when he was his smaller size, was easily as wide as 3 men, look at him next to Talbot when he changes, or when David is stroking his face in the lab, he is easily 3 times a man. And, despite the fact that i know people with some huge heads, Galactus' head is not humanly proportionate IMO.

Dragon
05-30-2006, 02:34 PM
Galactus' large head is a helmet. Underneath the helmet he has a regular sized head. And you're not actually telling me that a larger head needs to be CGi- not after things like Star Wars and so forth have been made.

Atomicchuck3k
05-30-2006, 04:05 PM
To get back on topic, the Hulk can be made larger than 3 men side by side with a guy in a body suit. Especially a guy that is already 2 men wide.

AVEITWITHJAMON
05-31-2006, 04:47 AM
To get back on topic, the Hulk can be made larger than 3 men side by side with a guy in a body suit. Especially a guy that is already 2 men wide.

Well i disagree with you here, Hyde from LXG, was barely two men wide and his suit was massive.

Atomicchuck3k
05-31-2006, 02:06 PM
Well i disagree with you here, Hyde from LXG, was barely two men wide and his suit was massive.

O-Rly

http://img290.imageshack.us/img290/161/hydelxg3xn.jpg http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/7710/hyde0024lm.png

I think you're looking at the suit from the waist down. The torso is what I'm refering to.

iceberg325
05-31-2006, 02:43 PM
I think they should go CGI Hulk again. Look at xmen 3, juggernaut is supposed to be huge. Look how he was portrayed in the movie and how many people complained about it. The Hulk isnt regarded as a good movie. If they put Hulk in a suit its taking a step back and I feel it will be a failure.

Atomicchuck3k
05-31-2006, 02:56 PM
I think they should go CGI Hulk again. Look at xmen 3, juggernaut is supposed to be huge. Look how he was portrayed in the movie and how many people complained about it. The Hulk isnt regarded as a good movie. If they put Hulk in a suit its taking a step back and I feel it will be a failure.

Does that mean you believe the recent Hulk CGI to be a success? There were a lots of people that complained about the Hulk's appearence in Ang Lee's version.

iceberg325
05-31-2006, 05:06 PM
Does that mean you believe the recent Hulk CGI to be a success? There were a lots of people that complained about the Hulk's appearence in Ang Lee's version.

IMO thats the only thing the movie had going for it. I really didnt like the HULK. I think its best to keep the cgi hulk and ditch the suit idea.

Gracen
06-01-2006, 04:14 AM
i'm new here but i can't believe this is being discussed. Hulk looked awesome in the first movie, even ebert and roeper thought so. this is 2006, a man in a suit is totally laughable. i saw FF and X3 and the man in suit didn't work, looked like old godzilla movies. CG or I won't see it. Hulk isn't supposed to be proportioned like a regular person, he's a monster, duh. ILM's best work to date was Hulk.

Atomicchuck3k
06-01-2006, 06:38 AM
even ebert and roeper thought so.

And that means what?

iceberg325
06-01-2006, 07:10 AM
i'm new here but i can't believe this is being discussed. Hulk looked awesome in the first movie, even ebert and roeper thought so. this is 2006, a man in a suit is totally laughable. i saw FF and X3 and the man in suit didn't work, looked like old godzilla movies. CG or I won't see it. Hulk isn't supposed to be proportioned like a regular person, he's a monster, duh. ILM's best work to date was Hulk.

Its true. If the Hulk is a suit this time around, it wont do the character justice. Hes massive, how will they replicate that in a suit. I think the only reason for brining up the suit idea is because CG Hulk is too much $$ and they cant count on the Hulk making enough money for them to make any good profit. Its not worth it to them.

AVEITWITHJAMON
06-01-2006, 10:50 AM
CGI is the only way to go, The Hulk in the first movie has only been bettered as a CG character by Kong, and that is 2 and a half years older than Hulk. Juggernaut wasnt up to much in X3, much the same as the rest of the movie. Imagine movie Juggernaut against movie Hulk, no ****ing contest!!!!!

Norm3
06-01-2006, 06:09 PM
I want a smaller comic book version CGI Hulk.

DACMAN
06-02-2006, 02:53 AM
The best way to kill the second film is putting a 6-7 foot tall man in a full body suit that's painted green and calling it "The Hulk"

iceberg325
06-02-2006, 08:00 AM
The best way to kill the second film is putting a 6-7 foot tall man in a full body suit that's painted green and calling it "The Hulk"

exactly!!!!

AVEITWITHJAMON
06-02-2006, 08:02 AM
The best way to kill the second film is putting a 6-7 foot tall man in a full body suit that's painted green and calling it "The Hulk"

Totally agree, CGI is the only way to go, especially after the first movie.

lordofthenerds
06-02-2006, 11:05 PM
Man in rubber suit. :o :up:
http://n9.typepad.com/lines_of_flight/hulk.jpg

Kaboom
06-03-2006, 06:08 PM
thre were two things i liked about hulk.

the cgi hulk.
bana's banner.

i hope both cme back.

AVEITWITHJAMON
06-06-2006, 04:23 AM
thre were two things i liked about hulk.

the cgi hulk.
bana's banner.

i hope both cme back.

Well i liked more than that but those two were definately some of the best points.

iceberg325
06-06-2006, 07:46 AM
Well i liked more than that but those two were definately some of the best points.

CGI Hulk please!!!!!!!!!!!!

spideymusprime
06-13-2006, 01:51 AM
Real costume. But CGI for actions scenes