TIH vs. Ang Lee's Hulk

[R_Hythlodeus]

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

Liv Tyler is sexy

Have I entered Bizarro world?

[A Necessary Evil]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

Have I entered Bizarro world?

Nope. Liv Tyler is hot. Never saw why people say she's not attractive.

[Obi-Ron]

Maybe people see her dad and just can't figure it out.

[Gabe99]

Hulk Is MTV Movies' Number One Character Of 2012

[Cagefighterkip]

The Incredible Hulk

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by R_Hythlodeus

Have I entered Bizarro world?

Nope, you just have terrible taste.

[Obi-Ron]

Originally Posted by Gabe99

Hulk Is MTV Movies' Number One Character Of 2012

NICE!

[Hmarrs]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

Exactly. Maybe he actually wished he had more fun and that he wished he did Hulk differently. He's being honest, can't blame him for that. Now the Hulk lovers are upset that the guy in charge of it doesn't even see it as the masterpiece that they perceive it.

Just because he doesn't love it doesn't mean you guys can't, so HMarrs stop being so bitter about it. He doesn't love it (notice I'm not saying he didn't like it). It's not a slap in the face at all, either.

And one last thing. He's not a hypocrit at all.

I promise I'm not bitter.
I'm just saying thathe let his opinion of his work be swayed by the opionion and reaction of it's viewers as an Artist you have to stand by what you believe or you are no longer an Artist.
If he believed in it then,then he should believe in it now.
Personally I agree it should have been fun not silly fun like Iron man but action fun.
But I'm not the Artist.

Originally Posted by Spider-Aziz

I still like Norton's film as much as I did when I first saw it

I can talk about change of view, I hated the first Hulk film, it took repeated views to fully appreciate Ang's film

Which is why i said it will stand the test of time.
Just the fact that it's till being mentioned says somthing.

Originally Posted by pr0xyt0xin

TIH still keeps me on the edge of my seat. Its in my top 5 super hero flicks. Ed Norton and Tim Roth make for great entertainment throughout. Liv Tyler is sexy idc what anyone says about her acting. The action is blisteringly cool and imo second only to Avengers in terms of action overall.

Love the film.

Ed Norton acting was lackluster and unispiring as I felt was most of the cast.
They were either underacting or overacting which made for a very bad balance.
I want to be clear on somthing even though my choice was HulkThere were aspects of both i liked and didn't like.
I still feel the movie was poorly paced,slow,overthought
overstuffed,even boring in others,downright silly in other someplaces,
TIH
The movie was just uninspiring,too fast paced,safe,boring in somplaces,
the acting to me was horrible,Hulk was T.V. weak,It played it safe all the way there should be nothing safe aboutthe Hulk that's what's so ironic.
Also while the Cg in the Hulk wasn't perfect it keep me in the film.
While the CG in TIH kept taking me out of it because i just couldn't get past his CG Game feel and look.
The reason I picked Hulk was because I felt it took more chances and tried harder maybe they dropped the ball
okay but the TIH felt to me
as though they didn't try at all they just got a prettier ball.
So the Hulk gets an A for effort.
That's why I picked Hulk.
It is for this reasonIi feel Hulk will stand longer in time.
It's like remembering the Hindeinburg even if the disaster is big enough and it captures the imaginiation it will be remebered.IT MAY SOMEDAY FIND AN AUDIENCE.
People will keep comming back it's like a car accident but no one remebers a fender bender.Thats' what TIH was too me a Fender bender.
TIH felt like a made for T.V. movie even Marvel knows it that's why there was no real advertisement for this feilm.
Why?Because it was just a fill in for the Avengers period.
One last thing while the comparission is always made both Hulk movies grossed about the same amount and both spent about the same amount but
that means 2007 Hulk comes out losing because 130 somthing million dollars in 2003 was more valuable then in 2008 that means 2003 Hulk spent more money to make and by percentage made more money in the BoX office.

Hulk
Domestic Gross$132,177,234
Production Budget$137 million


TIH
Gross$134,806,913
Production Budget$150million
And while the cost of money may have been different in 2003 as oppsed to 2007
134 million in 2003 is bigger budget then 2007 Hulk.
The 2007 Hulk spent way more money 16 million more to make 2003 money so it loses on both accounts
130 million doesnt buy as many cups of coffee in 2008 as it did in 2003.
Box office wise it was a bigger flop.
So sombody better add up the figures again.
Sorry but according to the facts and numbers don't lie TIH loses.
It may have been a bigger hit with fans(supposedly) but by all accounts it was a bigger flop at the Box Office then Hulk.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Hmarrs

I promise I'm not bitter.
I'm just saying thathe let his opinion of his work be swayed by the opionion and reaction of it's viewers as an Artist you have to stand by what you believe or you are no longer an Artist.
If he believed in it then,then he should believe in it now.
Personally I agree it should have been fun not silly fun like Iron man but action fun.
But I'm not the Artist.

No, he doesn't have to believe in it all the time. There's a little thing that you may not have heard of. It's call hindsight. Artists, autors, writers, diectors wish they did something different with their works all the time.

And no one said anything about public opinion, either. We can't say that he wasn't swayed by public or not. We can assume, but can't say for sure.

[Hmarrs]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

No, he doesn't have to believe in it all the time. There's a little thing that you may not have heard of. It's call hindsight. Artists, autors, writers, diectors wish they did something different with their works all the time.

And no one said anything about public opinion, either. We can't say that he wasn't swayed by public or not. We can assume, but can't say for sure.

You have your opion to what you think it was I have mine.If the movie had been a suceess he would have said"I knew it all along"I doubt he would have still made that statement.Also you are correct you see it all the time in Authors and Artist etc.However it is at this point where I consider them not to be true artist.Because art is about personel expression.
Too many times trends and styles are set by what people say they are and we become robots on assembly lines producing what people say is art or style or whatever.There are very few artist left in the world today few Artist and few new thinkers.

You can assume it was hindsight if you want I feel it was pressure from public opinion in the end only he knows and he is the one that has to live with it.I don't care.

[Jick09]

Originally Posted by Hmarrs

You have your opion to what you think it was I have mine.If the movie had been a suceess he would have said"I knew it all along"I doubt he would have still made that statement.

Maybe he would have.
Sam Raimi did, even though his first two Spidey movies were a success at the box office and with the critics:

G.M.: Are there things that you’d wish you’d done differently in the previous “Spider-Man” films? The first two earned especially strong reviews…

S.R.: What would I have done differently? I would have done everything differently, every single shot. I think in every picture that I’ve ever made. Everything that I’ve done torments me. I really would like another chance except I’d be too embarrassed to ever really try to do them again and no one would want to see the same movie just done differently.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2009/...g-differently/

It's not like an "artist" can't regret what he has already done or just wish he could change some things about what he did, or just looking at it and wish it was done differently, without being labeled as "not sticking to his vision".
Maybe da Vinci would have done Mona Lisa differently, too, if he could, with a different background, a different pose or anything else. As they go through diverse experiences, their minds change. They start to see things with a different perspective. Maybe that's what happened with Ang, which is also what happened with Raimi.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by Jick09

Maybe he would have.
Sam Raimi did, even though his first two Spidey movies were a success at the box office and with the critics:

G.M.: Are there things that you’d wish you’d done differently in the previous “Spider-Man” films? The first two earned especially strong reviews…

S.R.: What would I have done differently? I would have done everything differently, every single shot. I think in every picture that I’ve ever made. Everything that I’ve done torments me. I really would like another chance except I’d be too embarrassed to ever really try to do them again and no one would want to see the same movie just done differently.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2009/...g-differently/

It's not like an "artist" can't regret what he has already done or just wish he could change some things about what he did, or just looking at it and wish it was done differently, without being labeled as "not sticking to his vision".
Maybe da Vinci would have done Mona Lisa differently, too, if he could, with a different background, a different pose or anything else. As they go through diverse experiences, their minds change. They start to see things with a different perspective. Maybe that's what happened with Ang, which is also what happened with Raimi.

Yeah, this is all a big 'maybe'. It opens up questions as to whether the artist is being brutally honest with himself when he looks back at his work, and how much financial/critical success plays a part in his re-evaluation.

I think I can see where Hmarrs is coming from though, there is *such* a singular vision in the Ang Lee film, ie he is probably the only person in the world who would have made a Hulk movie in that manner, that he seems to have the absolute courage of his convictions. So much so, that if the film *had* been embraced more by the general critics/public, you would think he would have felt satisfied that his convictions were on the right track. In fact, you would think he would not have given his artistic vision a questioning *at all*.

Why *would* he question such courage of convictions, if indeed the film had been critically lauded across the board and hugely successful at the B.O? I don't see any reason why he would have in that situation. To have such a courage of conviction, generally speaking, it takes a lot to shake an artist out of that belief in what he is/was doing, and Hulk got a lot of flack.
See, I think there are a lot of directors out there who would have made a Spider-man flick along the same lines as Raimi, it is very similar to Donner's Superman in a lot of ways, but no-one else would have made a ponderous psycho-drama Hulk film like that, *that* is a one of a kind vision. Hulk having some lichen on the rocks in the desert? C'mon, Ang was tripping out his box during the flick, he was a man possessed of a very singular vision.
I don't think he would have reflected badly on his arty decisions if not for the critical/financial backlash. That was what shook him out of his deeply felt vision.

[Jick09]

Sure, this is all a big maybe, like I said in the very first line of my previous post.
Why would he question such courage of convictions? Maybe for the same reason Raimi did. Maybe other directors also thought that his vision was unique and that they couldn'y do something similar.

I was trying to say that things change as we go through different experiences. Regardless if the movie was or wasn't successful. May he would have felt like that, maybe he wouldn't. It depends on so many things. It's like trying to predict the future of the past.

But I won't say that no one would have made a psycho-drama Hulk film like Lee. That is a huge assumption.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by Jick09

Sure, this is all a big maybe, like I said in the very first line of my previous post.
Why would he question such courage of convictions? Maybe for the same reason Raimi did. Maybe other directors also thought that his vision was unique and that they couldn'y do something similar.

I was trying to say that things change as we go through different experiences. Regardless if the movie was or wasn't successful. May he would have felt like that, maybe he wouldn't. It depends on so many things. It's like trying to predict the future of the past.

But I won't say that no one would have made a psycho-drama Hulk film like Lee. That is a huge assumption.

Yeah, same as Hmarrs, I am just going by gut instinct, given what we have to work with in making our guesses as to the artist's state of mind.

I don't think it is a similar situation to that statement Raimi made though, that seems like more of an off-hand comment in terms of how he would have done this and that shot, he certainly did not deviate from his vision over the course of the 3 films, we just got more and less of the same.

What we are talking about here is a *very* singular vision, sure, there are comics that kind of storyline is taken from, but how it was executed? eh, I don't think it is such a huge assumption that no-one else in the world would have made that kind of Hulk film. Well, let's put it this way, I don't think any director who was in that position to make such a high risk(budding franchise) , big budget film would have. Other 'niche' art house directors might have taken such risks with such a property, but none of them would have been given the trust and opportunity. Ang Lee wouldn't have if not for CTHD, and the respect his other flicks have garnered.

Anyway, my point is, when I encounter such a singular vision , going against the grain, taken to such extremes(who else would have finished a hulk movie with a stop motion action painting?), I feel like such an artist would feel vindicated if they had reaped critical and financial kudos.
I cannot think of any situation I know of, where an artist has taken great artistic risks with such a big money venture, it has paid off, and then they have backtracked to say, 'oh no, i dun it wrong'. Every artist has an ego they like to have satisfied, no exceptions, and I think Ang's ego would have been most satisfied had he reaped the rewards of c/f kudos.

[Doc Ock]

I have been slowing growing to liking Lee's Hulk over the years. But I love The Incredible Hulk. I enjoyed it more than both Iron Man movies, and I loved both of those. Marvel Studios really hasn't made a dud yet in my eyes.

I was furious when Norton wasn't returning as the Hulk in Avengers, but I settled down when I saw how great...no...how perfect Ruffalo was as the role of Bruce Banner/The Hulk. I got excited at the possibility of Tim Blake Nelson becoming The Leader and geeked out at the numerous references to Stark Industries throughout the film.

I'd love to see Liv return as Betty and Hurt return as Ross.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by Hmarrs

You have your opion to what you think it was I have mine.If the movie had been a suceess he would have said"I knew it all along"I doubt he would have still made that statement.Also you are correct you see it all the time in Authors and Artist etc.However it is at this point where I consider them not to be true artist.Because art is about personel expression.
Too many times trends and styles are set by what people say they are and we become robots on assembly lines producing what people say is art or style or whatever.There are very few artist left in the world today few Artist and few new thinkers.

You can assume it was hindsight if you want I feel it was pressure from public opinion in the end only he knows and he is the one that has to live with it.I don't care.

Just one more thing to say on this...I think you are being way too harsh here and not considering other angles...now, I agree that if Ang's film had been much better recieved, he would have not backtracked on his work, but, it doesn't mean that an artist is 'going with the crowd/compromising his vision', if he reacts to a negative reaction like that.
He could realise that he had tunnel vision, perhaps he was so used to being right, he wasn't used to being wrong, and it took a backlash to make him re-evaluate his vision.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Originally Posted by soundofyousick

Yeah, this is all a big 'maybe'. It opens up questions as to whether the artist is being brutally honest with himself when he looks back at his work, and how much financial/critical success plays a part in his re-evaluation.

I think I can see where Hmarrs is coming from though, there is *such* a singular vision in the Ang Lee film, ie he is probably the only person in the world who would have made a Hulk movie in that manner, that he seems to have the absolute courage of his convictions. So much so, that if the film *had* been embraced more by the general critics/public, you would think he would have felt satisfied that his convictions were on the right track. In fact, you would think he would not have given his artistic vision a questioning *at all*.

Why *would* he question such courage of convictions, if indeed the film had been critically lauded across the board and hugely successful at the B.O? I don't see any reason why he would have in that situation. To have such a courage of conviction, generally speaking, it takes a lot to shake an artist out of that belief in what he is/was doing, and Hulk got a lot of flack.
See, I think there are a lot of directors out there who would have made a Spider-man flick along the same lines as Raimi, it is very similar to Donner's Superman in a lot of ways, but no-one else would have made a ponderous psycho-drama Hulk film like that, *that* is a one of a kind vision. Hulk having some lichen on the rocks in the desert? C'mon, Ang was tripping out his box during the flick, he was a man possessed of a very singular vision.
I don't think he would have reflected badly on his arty decisions if not for the critical/financial backlash. That was what shook him out of his deeply felt vision.

Well yeah thats what I felt as well, he just went with what he thought was the popular opinion of Hulk at the time in that recent interview, it sort of made him look a little weak and also was a sort of criticism of the people who did like Hulk and still do. Dont me wrong, I didnt take offence or anything, but maybe he should have been a bit more thoughtful of the people who did embrace his vision, not to mention being more supportive of what WAS his vision.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by AVEITWITHJAMON

Well yeah thats what I felt as well, he just went with what he thought was the popular opinion of Hulk at the time in that recent interview, it sort of made him look a little weak and also was a sort of criticism of the people who did like Hulk and still do. Dont me wrong, I didnt take offence or anything, but maybe he should have been a bit more thoughtful of the people who did embrace his vision, not to mention being more supportive of what WAS his vision.

I have not read the interview, just what folk have said about about it here.
So, if it was that recent, it seems like he has taken in what folk liked about the Hulk in Avengers, that he was fun in the action scenes.
Funny thing is, I didn't think that the Hulk action in Avengers was *that* different from the outstanding desert sequence in Ang's film.
That sequence *was* fun personified, it was a blast, and there was some Hulk humour in there too... the way he walks up to the tank slapping the gun turret in his hand like a teacher with the birch, about to give a spanking...biting off the missile head and spitting it out at the helicopter...his growling stare out with Ross...

It's just that the Avengers had the advantage of Hulk going up against other superheroes and an alien army.

Ang did mess up the potential of the 'Absorbing man' though, he could have had a lot of fun with that character's powers going up against Hulk, rather than the murky, short clash they have at the end.

But, he'll probably also mean just having fun with the concept overall, instead of intensely dwelling on his father and what have you.
I really liked the movie when I first saw it, but it does get bogged down for me a lot in that regard, I still love the Hulk action though, which is as much fun to watch as in the Avengers.

edit: Maybe he means he'd stick to the same type of thing, but, mix up the drama a bit, instead of being *so* intense and ponderous all the way through.

[riderishot]

personally, i believe ANG LEE'S hulk was a prototype for future Hulks say like a test run if you may. INCREDIBLE HULK was a improvement but AVENGERS HULK nail it.










may the LORD have his way.

[soundofyousick]

Originally Posted by riderishot

personally, i believe ANG LEE'S hulk was a prototype for future Hulks say like a test run if you may. INCREDIBLE HULK was a improvement but AVENGERS HULK nail it.

What helped the Avengers Banner/Hulk was that you had an expert comic-book writer making the movie, and the CGI was about as good as you could have expected for Hulk.
The CG for Ang's Hulk was very good indeed for the most part though, but the design of Hulk was better in avengers, improved tech helped too I imagine, as it was the same company who realised both Hulks, just with almost a decade between them.

[Hmarrs]

Originally Posted by soundofyousick

Just one more thing to say on this...I think you are being way too harsh here and not considering other angles...now, I agree that if Ang's film had been much better recieved, he would have not backtracked on his work, but, it doesn't mean that an artist is 'going with the crowd/compromising his vision', if he reacts to a negative reaction like that.
He could realise that he had tunnel vision, perhaps he was so used to being right, he wasn't used to being wrong, and it took a backlash to make him re-evaluate his vision.

I really don't feel I'm being harsh IMO.

Because once your vision is altered it is no longer your vision.
How can you be wrong if it is YOUR VISION!!!
Okay if he would have said his vision was not what the people wanted I can understand that.
He could have said" I stand by what I did because I felt it was right and I still do.It's how I see it."
That is if you believe in it so much as someone pointed out.
Maybe he was being sincere in hindsight okay.
However I personally don't buy it.
Especially when your statement was so polar and contrary to what you intended.
You go out to make a Dark Phsyco Monster movie and you say I should have had more fun with it???

Yeah I can see why you would say that if you see all of the current movies doing that and making a buck but I can't see how that would have helped you with your vision.I'm sorry I don't buy it.

That's like Nolan saying I should have made Batman more Campy like the series in the 60's.
again I'm not sticking up for the movie.Just his effort.
Thats what I have against TIH it seemed as though they were so afraid to make a mistake that they took no chances not even in Advertising the movie.
Hwever I was extremly disapointed in the Hulk because I remember sitting in the theater for another 15 minutes after it was over in disbelief feeling cheated.

However yeah Rami on his Spiderman films may have made statements on what he should have done but it was based on how he it could have improved his vision all artist do.
He wasn't saying I should have had another vision.

And yes maybe Devinci would have changed his background on the Mona Lisa but I don't think he would ever said "I should have painted a man."
No matter who said what.If you alter it based on public opinion then it's not your vision anymore but a shared vision.

That's why it's called persoanl expression.To be honest I feel thats where he made his mistake in that he made his vision and his vision alone when the Hulk belongs to all of us.
It should have been a shared vision or someone who is aware of the general shared vision.
If he likes that vision good watch it all day long in your house it just wasn't right for me but don't backtrack on it if it was right for you based on public opinion.
Grow a pair man.He I did the best I could I believe in it and I still do.It's two bad it wasn't well recieved.Dude you don't have to be liked by everyone.
If you are going to apologize or recant then recant on not being more open on that it was more then your vision but the vision of everyone.
If that was he was trying to say then fine but I don't think so.

I don't blame his personal vision I blame that fact that it wasn't his place to make it his own personal vision.
However If you going to have the guts to make it yours then you better have the guts to stand by it or don't make that decision.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Hmarrs

You have your opion to what you think it was I have mine.If the movie had been a suceess he would have said"I knew it all along"I doubt he would have still made that statement.Also you are correct you see it all the time in Authors and Artist etc.However it is at this point where I consider them not to be true artist.Because art is about personel expression.
Too many times trends and styles are set by what people say they are and we become robots on assembly lines producing what people say is art or style or whatever.There are very few artist left in the world today few Artist and few new thinkers.

You can assume it was hindsight if you want I feel it was pressure from public opinion in the end only he knows and he is the one that has to live with it.I don't care.

You're the second person this week who questions what a true artist by not even judging their work.

Art is about personal expression, indeed you're right about that. But just because he doesn't feel strongly about how he expressed himself with the Hulk does not mean he's not an artist. Artists are not allowed to have opinion about their work? Are they supposed to just sit and smile and lie about how they feel about their work? A true artist is not allowed to have regrets?

[soundofyousick]

@Hmarrs

Y'know, that is a good point you made at the end there, that I hadn't really considered. About how an artist should take onboard the already existing vision of the Hulk in a lot of fan's minds, well, what a Hulk movie should constitute. This is true.
Sure, he went to the Peter David comics(of which I have only read about 15 or so, not the ones relvant to that adaption), but there is that feeling that he searched out the most esoteric material, because he was a mite embarassed about making a comic-book hero movie, and wanted to turn it into something more, when it didn't really need to be, to be an effective movie.
He stuck in the comic book panel multi-screen stuff, but, in a way that could be construed as saying he was embaressed about the comic book origin of the material, like, 'Hey look, it's me Ang Lee adaptor of literature, but here I know it's only a comic-book, look, see, I'm making it *look* like the actual pages you used to read when you were a kid! How arty is that!'

[xeno000]

I recently watched Hulk again and found that the CGI did not hold up well at all. Back when it first came out I thought that the Hulk looked out of place against the live background, and on re-watching the character looked even more cartoonish and obviously superimposed. The color used for his skin was rather hideous and he looked like he was made of clay instead of flesh and bone. Hulk never looked real or even vaguely realistic in Ang Lee's film. He was always a putty-like cartoon figure that stood out harshly against every setting they put him in.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Hmarrs

I really don't feel I'm being harsh IMO.

Because once your vision is altered it is no longer your vision.
How can you be wrong if it is YOUR VISION!!!
Okay if he would have said his vision was not what the people wanted I can understand that.
However I stand by what I did because I felt it was right and I still do.It's how I see it.
That is if you believe in it so much as someone pointed out.
However maybe he was being sincere in hindsight okay.
However I personally don't buy it.
Especially when your statement was so polar and contrary to what you intended.
You go out to make a Dark Phsyco Monster movie and you say I should have had more fun with it???

Now you're just getting silly and speaking in hyperbole and overexaggeration. I question how old you are also.

An artist can change their vision because it is their vision. It's what came from their mind and their head, and as times change, their mindset can change as they mature (or demature) as a person and a human being. Basically, what you're saying is that a person can't and should not ever change anything about them as an extension of saying an artist can't change their opinion on something.

You're one of the several people on this site who have no idea what an artist is at all. Deep down, you are just bitter and angry that Ang Lee doesn't view his own movie as preciously as sad Hulk fanboys do.