Answering script questions: DO NOT OPEN UNLESS YOU WANT TO SPOIL THE WHOLE MOVIE

[Spade]

This sounds positive, but mediocre at the same time. Don't get me wrong, as I think the Transformers approach might help. But what's up with some of the stuff here...?

1. Bruce Jones' run is a really big risk to have involved in any Hulk film, be it a thinker or an action flick. They should have immediately recognized this. Those elements are an automatic negative. I'm really discriminate about Jones having any kind of say, and Norton's support of his run does not make me happy.

2. "High-tech soldiers"? What the heck does that mean? I really hope the reviewer ran out of descriptive dialogue there, because if it's not Hulkbusters that could look more ridiculous than the Hulk dogs. I want to see the Abomination against the Hulk, not "Emil Blonsky on a drug fix taking on the Hulk" or just regular soldiers with fancy weaponry when they should know better by now.

3. I haven't seen bad dialogue yet and I'll give it the benefit of the doubt, but when the day is said and done bad dialogue can murder a film like this. This is an action movie. Iffy dialogue can pass by on the three-strike rule, but a script full of corn is not good, especially when it's going to be spoken by actors. I hope this was fixed.

Overall, I know Ang Lee's film needed a much faster pace than it had and a lot less random inserts like the father. With that said, I hope that they go Predator on this franchise and not Ghost Rider.

 

[ultimatefan]

This review makes me pretty pessimistic about the film, I hope the later drafts changed a lot. My biggest fear about this sequel/reboot/whatever is exactly going the totally opposite way. Yes, Ang Lee went a little too far into trying to make it an "arthouse blockbuster", but you don´t need to go all the other way to succeed. Filmmakers like Chris Nolan and Bryan Singer (well, at least with the X-Men movies) proved you can find a balance between doing something smarter and character-driven and still satisfy the needs of a summer blockbuster movie.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

2. "High-tech soldiers"? What the heck does that mean?

I agree; it's a little vague. But then, it was the writer's intent to be intentionally vague, so I can withhold judgment and not go to lengths to criticize it at this time.

3. ... This is an action movie. Iffy dialogue can pass by on the three-strike rule, but a script full of corn is not good, especially when it's going to be spoken by actors. I hope this was fixed.

Agree again.

Btw, thanks for the link to The Today Show's exclusive "sneak" (note your spelling) peak of TDK.

This review makes me pretty pessimistic about the film, I hope the later drafts changed a lot. My biggest fear about this sequel/reboot/whatever is exactly going the totally opposite way. Yes, Ang Lee went a little too far into trying to make it an "arthouse blockbuster", but you don´t need to go all the other way to succeed. Filmmakers like Chris Nolan and Bryan Singer (well, at least with the X-Men movies) proved you can find a balance between doing something smarter and character-driven and still satisfy the needs of a summer blockbuster movie.

For those who don't want popcorn, but rather "something smarter," I sympathize with you. But I don't think it's enough to be categorically "pessimistic" about the movie's prospects. Like you, I don't want TIH to go the "totally opposite way," but unlike you, I don't think they will - it's the difference between being a pessimist and an optimist.

Oh, and I will compliment you for believing not so much in Heath Ledger, but believing in Christopher Nolan's belief in the version of the Joker that it seems we're getting. I will admit, I wasn't crazy about the direction it seemed they were going, but your avy now strangely seems to have renewed purpose with me. In fact, the more I contemplate that trailer, the more Ledger conveys himself to me as the perfect antagonist to Bale.

As for my own thoughts on the review, I really like the part that says:

"There’s an interesting dichotomy between Banner and Blonsky: one is a pacifist, trying to quell the monster within, while the other is a sadist who just wants an outlet for his inner demons, and is all too happy to find it in gamma radiation. When the two finally collide, it’s nothing short of earth-shattering. Or at least, it will be, assuming the budget allows it."

and

"As far as the rest of the movie is concerned, this isn’t what you’d call a thinker. It’s a big time summer blockbuster through and through. It opens quietly enough, but once the action kicks in, it hits the ground running and doesn’t let up until the climax. Which, in my mind, is exactly how a Hulk movie should be."

These descriptions make me happy. :heart: :heart:

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

This review makes me pretty pessimistic about the film, I hope the later drafts changed a lot. My biggest fear about this sequel/reboot/whatever is exactly going the totally opposite way. Yes, Ang Lee went a little too far into trying to make it an "arthouse blockbuster", but you don´t need to go all the other way to succeed. Filmmakers like Chris Nolan and Bryan Singer (well, at least with the X-Men movies) proved you can find a balance between doing something smarter and character-driven and still satisfy the needs of a summer blockbuster movie.

Exactly, Bryan Singer's 3 CB movies and Chris Nolans Batman Begins (i also think TDK looks stunning) are the type of CB movies that i love, and i just dont see TIH being like those movies, IMO it looks more of a FF, X3 movie rather than an SR, X1 and X2 or BB movie.

 

[Scooter]

Not liking the sound of that review.

"As far as the rest of the movie is concerned, this isn’t what you’d call a thinker. It’s a big time summer blockbuster through and through. It opens quietly enough, but once the action kicks in, it hits the ground running and doesn’t let up until the climax. Which, in my mind, is exactly how a Hulk movie should be. Of course, the seemingly inescapable drawback of a big budget action movie is the cheesy dialogue and corny one-liners. It just seems to go hand-in-hand with the genre, and this movie is no exception."

Ouch.

 

[Golgo-13]

Not liking the sound of that review.

"As far as the rest of the movie is concerned, this isn’t what you’d call a thinker. It’s a big time summer blockbuster through and through. It opens quietly enough, but once the action kicks in, it hits the ground running and doesn’t let up until the climax. Which, in my mind, is exactly how a Hulk movie should be. Of course, the seemingly inescapable drawback of a big budget action movie is the cheesy dialogue and corny one-liners. It just seems to go hand-in-hand with the genre, and this movie is no exception."

Ouch.

With the knowledge of Norton re-writing things as they shoot, i think all the worrying about corny dialogue, should be a thing of the past.

 

[The Joker_1000]

That's the last thing any Hulk movie needs.

 

[Golgo-13]

I think the Hulk, himself, is dumb enough as it is. The last thing we need is the rest of the cast brought down to Hulk's IQ level with silly dialogue.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

What's not to love about "it hits the ground running and doesn’t let up until the climax"? Better said, what person who calls himself a representative of the male species reads this and doesn't get excited? If you can't get up for nonstop, heart-pounding action, mixed with suspense, I don't know what you can get up for. I'm thinking some of you need to lock yourself in a room in the far back corner of a library and force yourself to watch Ang Lee's Hulk a few hundred times if you think "serious" is the way to go...

 

[FrostBite]

What's not to love about "it hits the ground running and doesn’t let up until the climax"? Better said, what person who calls himself a representative of the male species reads this and doesn't get excited? If you can't get up for nonstop, heart-pounding action, mixed with suspense, I don't know what you can get up for. I'm thinking some of you need to lock yourself in a room in the far back corner of a library and force yourself to watch Ang Lee's Hulk a few hundred times if you think "serious" is the way to go...

I don't understand people. Some like non-stop action, some like the Begins and SR approach, etc. It's like theres no way to like all of them.

I personally liked FF even with it's cheese (but hey, I always found the comics to be full of it too!)

Yet I do like a serious movie once in awhile as well.

If anything this movie sounds like "Transformers" massive corn lines, with a big scale. (Which I did not like.) Yet I won't get pessemistic until I see the film, just as I did with Transformers. As long as the cheese isn't as bad as, giant robots walking around outside your house, or saying "No... I think you're uh... really... you know more than meets the eye!" I'll be fine.

I personally LIKE the idea of hits the ground and doesn't let up. I know no one really saw it, but Shoot Em Up was my favorite film all year... why? Absurdly awesome action with little to no plot. This doesn't mean I don't like a serious thinker, but sometimes, all I want is a little adrenaline rush.... and although I sympathize with my fellow Hulk fans who want a mixture of cerebral focus, as well as action for this complex character.... I really do think Hulk is one of the only heroes I can truly see pulling off a good no-hold's action film. (Hm... maybe Punisher though...)

Edit: can someone tell me WHY it is so wrong to borrow the elements of mediation and "Mr. Green" from Bruce Jones' run? It doesn't seem THAT terrible. As long has his meditation isn't grotesquely over done...whats the big deal here?

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

I don't understand people. Some like non-stop action, some like the Begins and SR approach, etc. It's like theres no way to like all of them.

I personally liked FF even with it's cheese (but hey, I always found the comics to be full of it too!)

Yet I do like a serious movie once in awhile as well.

If anything this movie sounds like "Transformers" massive corn lines, with a big scale. (Which I did not like.) Yet I won't get pessemistic until I see the film, just as I did with Transformers. As long as the cheese isn't as bad as, giant robots walking around outside your house, or saying "No... I think you're uh... really... you know more than meets the eye!" I'll be fine.

I personally LIKE the idea of hits the ground and doesn't let up. I know no one really saw it, but Shoot Em Up was my favorite film all year... why? Absurdly awesome action with little to no plot. This doesn't mean I don't like a serious thinker, but sometimes, all I want is a little adrenaline rush.... and although I sympathize with my fellow Hulk fans who want a mixture of cerebral focus, as well as action for this complex character.... I really do think Hulk is one of the only heroes I can truly see pulling off a good no-hold's action film. (Hm... maybe Punisher though...)

Edit: can someone tell me WHY it is so wrong to borrow the elements of mediation and "Mr. Green" from Bruce Jones' run? It doesn't seem THAT terrible. As long has his meditation isn't grotesquely over done...whats the big deal here?

Seriously FrostBite. The more I hang around these Hulk forums, the more I am convinced that some people were simply meant to be directors in the filming business. I just don't understand why they continue to post around here with the rest of us mere mortals, when they could be perfecting their perfect screenplays in Hollywood. Because if there's anything they're not, it's easygoing fans who are in it to enjoy the movies for their worth. The criticism is just mind-boggling. And let's not forget that we're still dealing with reviews of a draft dated May 2007. Seriously, how do you people sleep at night, exit voting booths, pick up groceries, etc? I mean, if you're having this much trouble finding things to like about a script review of a fictional movie, then you must absolutely rake yourselves in real-life situations. How do you do it? How do you survive? Who are your friends??

 

[FrostBite]

Seriously FrostBite. The more I hang around these Hulk forums, the more I am convinced that some people were simply meant to be directors in the filming business. I just don't understand why they continue to post around here with the rest of us mere mortals, when they could be perfecting their perfect screenplays in Hollywood. Because if there's anything they're not, it's easygoing fans who are in it to enjoy the movies for their worth. The criticism is just mind-boggling. And let's not forget that we're still dealing with reviews of a draft dated May 2007. Seriously, how do you people sleep at night, exit voting booths, pick up groceries, etc? I mean, if you're having this much trouble finding things to like about a script review of a fictional movie, then you must absolutely rake yourselves in real-life situations. How do you do it? How do you survive? Who are your friends??

Yeah, ME t:. No no, but I do hope to have a movie made someday, as a little dream, not directing, to much responsibility and stress... I just want to write screenplays. (Not going to happen most likely, but one can only say they tried!)

The way I see it is not a way most movie goers see it. I don't think there IS such thing as a BAD MOVIE. There are movies I don't like... but someone out there is bound to enjoy them, and that's why they're made.

I've heard people say X-3 is the worst movie ever made or FF2, both, I enjoyed. In fact I remember looking at my friend who rarely likes comic book films after the movie and him saying "Only problem? Galactus, otherwise... I came several times, and we all know everyone laughed at "Rockslide.""

A movie is simply made for entertainment purposes. Whether they go for blockbuster or artistic vision, they are looking to entertain people. Whether how poorly written or corny a movie is, there is bound to be someone who loves it. Which is why I cannot agree with "Bad" films, or games, or books or anything. Saying a form of media is good or bad is simply subjective, not fact. Which is why Ang fans are even allowed to love a film many did not like, and is why I come into every movie forum trying to be respectful, even if I care to disagree.

I go into every movie with a fresh state of mind, a blank slate if you will, most do not. This is a problem TIH is going to face.

Ang fans may hate it.
Action fans may love it.
Comic lovers may hate it.
Fans of the show may love it.
Many of those whom hated the first may not even give it a try.

These are probably some deciding factors as to why we havn't seen much as well. No teasers, no posters etc. Why put up a teaser poster in theaters to build up negativity? If anything Hulk needs to avoid ALL TEASERS. As the general audience will say "Another one? Ugh..." Smack the general audience with a stone cold trailer and leave it at that.

The only thing Ed and LL are trying to do is bring a movie that people will enjoy. But they were probably told to keep it action oriented from the higher ups and no where near as deep as they want the money the last did not make. We all knew this day one.

 

[Scooter]

... I really do think Hulk is one of the only heroes I can truly see pulling off a good no-hold's action film. (Hm... maybe Punisher though...)

Any superhero lends himself to exciting spectacle and action, that's what superpowers do for you. The Hulk, Superman, Batman, The X-Men, Iron-Man, Spider-man, etc.; Michael Bay would have a field day with any one of them.

The things is, there can and should be more. There's is a wealth of thematic and emotional depth to be drawn upon when mining these characters and their world's for stories, especially when we ignore the frivolous details that are the natural consequence of a 40-year-plus continuity. Stripping the properties down to their core concepts (man vs. monster, the dangers of technology, etc.) and then adapting - and, in the process, elaborating on - them for cinema can make for some compelling films.

Ang Lee deserves all the credit bestowed upon him, and them some, for doing just what he did with Hulk. Again, he examined the core concepts (in the Hulk's case, an intriguing interplay between a man and the manifestation of his inner demons, among others), set them up within the framework of strong inter/intra-character relationships and developments, and, in doing all this, made an honest - and mostly successfull - attempt to really elevated the source material, rather than dumbing down the film.

We don't respect the source material (as is so often the fanboy charge) by reveling in the characters superficialities ("The red is too dark, they aren't respecting the source!" or "There isn't enough action, they aren't respecting the comics!") and expunging real character in favor of mindless action, but rather by using our filmaking capabilities to more fully realize the dramatifc potential within these works.

 

[FrostBite]

Any superhero lends himself to exciting spectacle and action, that's what superpowers do for you. The Hulk, Superman, Batman, The X-Men, Iron-Man, Spider-man, etc.; Michael Bay would have a field day with any one of them.

The things is, there can and should be more. There's is a wealth of thematic and emotional depth to be drawn upon when mining these characters and their world's for stories, especially when we ignore the frivolous details that are the natural consequence of a 40-year-plus continuity. Stripping the properties down to their core concepts (man vs. monster, the dangers of technology, etc.) and then adapting - and, in the process, elaborating on - them for cinema can make for some compelling films.

Ang Lee deserves all the credit bestowed upon him, and them some, for doing just what he did with Hulk. Again, he examined the core concepts (in the Hulk's case, an intriguing interplay between a man and the manifestation of his inner demons, among others), set them up within the framework of strong inter/intra-character relationships and developments, and, in doing all this, made an honest - and mostly successfull - attempt to really elevated the source material, rather than dumbing down the film.

We don't respect the source material (as is so often the fanboy charge) by reveling in the characters superficialities ("The red is too dark, they aren't respecting the source!" or "There isn't enough action, they aren't respecting the comics!") and expunging real character in favor of mindless action, but rather by using our filmaking capabilities to more fully realize the dramatifc potential within these works.

To be fair the only ones I felt to deliever "More" were Spider-man, X-men, and BB. Even then, I can't say the same for the former movies sequals. (That's right, I was bored by Spidey 2 and X-2 )

This is all more subjectivity. You believe there should be "more" in every film, I do not. You can examine these lessons while having a fall out action flick. You do not have to dwelve so deep into the characters minds that you leave me with the same thing every time.

If every super hero was dark, brooding, serious, 2hr 30min long I wouldn't give my money to see it. One of the reasons I like the hero (if you can call him that) Deadpool is because he does not take himself seriously.

Don't get me wrong, you're allowed to hold the opinion that you want "more" out of these films as others such as Ave whom I respect have also shared common ground with you. But you can't say for a fact thats how they "SHOULD" be.

These movies SHOULD entertain though. You go for the more serious films, many people go for flat out action to have fun, I tend to go for a mixture of both.

The only problem I see with people on forums is they tend to rate a movie a 1 or a 10. There IS no middle ground. There's no "this movie seems like it'll be a fun ride," it's either the BB case "This movie looks amazing!!!!!" or the X-3 case "WTF DID RATNER DO!!!!! HOW DARE HE DESTROY A PIECE OF CINEMA!"

I don't ask you to agree with me, I just ask you to be open minded to the fact that none of these hero films SHOULD bend to what WE want (heck Spider-man 3 was ruined for the inclusion of what fans begged for,) but to whom they want to appeal to and what the director or screenplay writer has in mind... if that backfires for them in the long run, then thats their own faults.

At the end of the day though, these are movies. Just that, rolls of film slapped onto a big screen to entertain us... if they do, good, if they don't it's not the end of the world. What you may find mindless others may find a pure work of amazing cinema. What you find art, they may find garbage. What I find as art and entertainment are polarized... it's rare when a movie can balance them both for MY needs. BB for example, great work of art movie... but I found it boring. I own it, I enjoy watching it, but it just isn't Batman to me. Burton made a film that felt like Batman to me, but lacked substance... solid entertainment. If there was a way to merge the good from both Nolan and Burton films I'd crap myself with joy.

The old animated series, though geared towards children managed to keep a serious nature to entertainment for me. I found it BRILLIANT.

Edited for the fact I misread your last paragraph for my final comment... sorry about that.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Yeah, ME t:. No no, but I do hope to have a movie made someday, as a little dream, not directing, to much responsibility and stress... I just want to write screenplays. (Not going to happen most likely, but one can only say they tried!)

Ha... had totally forgotten about our past conversations. Well, in that case, you would be one of the more sensible directors around here.

The way I see it is not a way most movie goers see it. I don't think there IS such thing as a BAD MOVIE. There are movies I don't like... but someone out there is bound to enjoy them, and that's why they're made. ... A movie is simply made for entertainment purposes. Whether they go for blockbuster or artistic vision, they are looking to entertain people. Whether how poorly written or corny a movie is, there is bound to be someone who loves it. Which is why I cannot agree with "Bad" films, or games, or books or anything. Saying a form of media is good or bad is simply subjective, not fact. Which is why Ang fans are even allowed to love a film many did not like, and is why I come into every movie forum trying to be respectful, even if I care to disagree.

The only problem with this is it leaves likability as the sole determinant for entertainment value and, in that case, I can make absolute s***, market it, and as long as I get one guy to say "Liked it," then I've succeeded by your estimation. Is that really what you mean to say - that truly, if movies only exist for entertainment value, then there are no standards or criteria as to what constitutes an entertaining movie? Or, for that matter, that neither reasonable nor good movies, to go along with bad ones, even exist - they're just simply "movies"? That a movie's entertainment value is merely left up to one's own preferences and that its content is irrelevant, as long as one person is entertained? Or if multiple people must be entertained, what is the minimum number? Why hand out Oscar awards? I mean, if it's really the case that "there's no such thing as a bad movie," then why strive for anything at all? Just go out and make s*** because you're bound to succeed with no standards that would determine that you've failed.

I agree with everything else you said.

Ang Lee deserves all the credit bestowed upon him, and them some, for doing just what he did with Hulk. Again, he examined the core concepts (in the Hulk's case, an intriguing interplay between a man and the manifestation of his inner demons, among others), set them up within the framework of strong inter/intra-character relationships and developments, and, in doing all this, made an honest - and mostly successfull - attempt to really elevated the source material, rather than dumbing down the film.

And people still hated it. Hence the reason they won't make more such films, but gravitate toward action. Now enter your term mindless action - define what constitutes this and you've solved the dilemma.

 

[Scooter]

The only problem with this is it leaves likability as the sole determinant for entertainment value and, in that case, I can make absolute s***, market it, and as long as I get one guy to say "Liked it," then I've succeeded by your estimation. Is that really what you mean to say - that truly, if movies only exist for entertainment value, then there are no standards or criteria as to what constitutes an entertaining movie? Or, for that matter, that neither reasonable nor good movies, to go along with bad ones, even exist - they're just simply "movies"? That a movie's entertainment value is merely left up to one's own preferences and that its content is irrelevant, as long as one person is entertained? Or if multiple people must be entertained, what is the minimum number? Why hand out Oscar awards? I mean, if it's really the case that "there's no such thing as a bad movie," then why strive for anything at all? Just go out and make s*** because you're bound to succeed with no standards that would determine that you've failed.

A lot of this is quite good. I'd elaborate, but I'm tired.

And people still hated it. Hence the reason they won't make more such films, but gravitate toward action. Now enter your term mindless action - define what constitutes this and you've solved the dilemma.

Well, I can't say it was a perfect film, or even a geat film - that would be almost as unseemly, inaccurate, and unsupportable a platitute as "And people still hated it". But it was a great deal better than most of the cinematic schlock derived from comic books these days, and that was partly due to the action. The purposeful, emotionally charged and primed action that abounded in Hulk differed wildly from the mindless (that word again, used here to denote the flash-bang special effects wizardry that is meant to overwhelm an audience in the hopes of making them forget what a piece of crap a movie really is), this-is-the-whole-point spectactle that constituted Transformers, for instance.

Of course, that sort of thing works for some (certainly, more than a few dropped-in and tuned-out for Transformers), but it really isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Well, I can't say it was a perfect film, or even a geat film - that would be almost as unseemly, inaccurate, and unsupportable a platitute as "And people still hated it". But it was a great deal better than most of the cinematic schlock derived from comic books these days, and that was partly due to the action. The purposeful, emotionally charged and primed action that abounded in Hulk differed wildly from the mindless (that word again, used here to denote the flash-bang special effects wizardry that is meant to overwhelm an audience in the hopes of making them forget what a piece of crap a movie really is), this-is-the-whole-point spectactle that constituted Transformers, for instance.

Of course, that sort of thing works for some (certainly, more than a few dropped-in and tuned-out for Transformers), but it really isn't my cup of tea.

Ha, all right. Now here's the real kicker - you just told that to someone who loved Ang's film. My point is the preponderance of evidence - mainly ticket sales, which would speak to the movie's overall reception - is that, yes, people still hated it. I mean, have you been living on the moon that you haven't noticed 3 out of every 4 comments on the Hulk boards is a knock on Ang's film - literally, the repeated cries for a "real" Hulk movie that makes amends for the first one? Did you somehow miss the near-record (at the time) 69.7 percent drop on its second weekend - how everyone rushed out on its opening weekend to set a June record, only to mysteriously fail to return for second and third viewings? Seriously dude. It's not just me saying it - I'm merely reporting to you what I objectively see in the broader arena of fans and moviegoers alike. Besides, of what benefit would it serve to talk down the movie? I WANT the Hulk movies to succeed. If I talked down about the movie, I would be doing an incredible disservice to my own screen name. So, while it may all be fine and well that some of us did INDEED love the movie, don't give me this "unseemly, inaccurate, and unsupportable a platitute" b.s. over what really is an observable, accurate and entirely verifiable matter.

p.s. I loved Transformers.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What's not to love about "it hits the ground running and doesn’t let up until the climax"? Better said, what person who calls himself a representative of the male species reads this and doesn't get excited? If you can't get up for nonstop, heart-pounding action, mixed with suspense, I don't know what you can get up for. I'm thinking some of you need to lock yourself in a room in the far back corner of a library and force yourself to watch Ang Lee's Hulk a few hundred times if you think "serious" is the way to go...

Well i love Ang's Hulk so i wouldnt mind that. And i'm sorry if i expect more than just crash-bang-wallop action in a movie. If a Transformers movie direct by Michael Bay can have character development, emotion and heart, then Hulk should have these things in abundance.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Any superhero lends himself to exciting spectacle and action, that's what superpowers do for you. The Hulk, Superman, Batman, The X-Men, Iron-Man, Spider-man, etc.; Michael Bay would have a field day with any one of them.

The things is, there can and should be more. There's is a wealth of thematic and emotional depth to be drawn upon when mining these characters and their world's for stories, especially when we ignore the frivolous details that are the natural consequence of a 40-year-plus continuity. Stripping the properties down to their core concepts (man vs. monster, the dangers of technology, etc.) and then adapting - and, in the process, elaborating on - them for cinema can make for some compelling films.

Ang Lee deserves all the credit bestowed upon him, and them some, for doing just what he did with Hulk. Again, he examined the core concepts (in the Hulk's case, an intriguing interplay between a man and the manifestation of his inner demons, among others), set them up within the framework of strong inter/intra-character relationships and developments, and, in doing all this, made an honest - and mostly successfull - attempt to really elevated the source material, rather than dumbing down the film.

We don't respect the source material (as is so often the fanboy charge) by reveling in the characters superficialities ("The red is too dark, they aren't respecting the source!" or "There isn't enough action, they aren't respecting the comics!") and expunging real character in favor of mindless action, but rather by using our filmaking capabilities to more fully realize the dramatifc potential within these works.

Exactly, the only thing i disagree with you on is Transformers, which for me, wasnt a mindless action movie. When you think about it, the movie only had 3-4 MAJOR action scene's, all of the rest was character, emotion and heart, which TF had in abundance IMO.

However, i fully agree with all of the rest.

 

[FrostBite]

Ha... had totally forgotten about our past conversations. Well, in that case, you would be one of the more sensible directors around here.



The only problem with this is it leaves likability as the sole determinant for entertainment value and, in that case, I can make absolute s***, market it, and as long as I get one guy to say "Liked it," then I've succeeded by your estimation. Is that really what you mean to say - that truly, if movies only exist for entertainment value, then there are no standards or criteria as to what constitutes an entertaining movie? Or, for that matter, that neither reasonable nor good movies, to go along with bad ones, even exist - they're just simply "movies"? That a movie's entertainment value is merely left up to one's own preferences and that its content is irrelevant, as long as one person is entertained? Or if multiple people must be entertained, what is the minimum number? Why hand out Oscar awards? I mean, if it's really the case that "there's no such thing as a bad movie," then why strive for anything at all? Just go out and make s*** because you're bound to succeed with no standards that would determine that you've failed.

I agree with everything else you said.



And people still hated it. Hence the reason they won't make more such films, but gravitate toward action. Now enter your term mindless action - define what constitutes this and you've solved the dilemma.

No no no, you misunderstand. Of course quality should be a driving force, and by quality, I mean two things. Production quality, and story.

Unfortunately those arn't what sets criteria in Hollywood it's money.

What I was trying to get acrossed is many people are acting as a movie should be custom tailored to their tastes, and if it's not, then it's automatically **** as if no one could ever like it.

This could be exampled from the abudance of posts saying "Blech, who could like Ang's Hulk!?"

Just because I think there is no such thing as a "bad" movie, since there is always going to be an audience that loves it... that doesn't mean that there arn't movies that are BETTER. That movie shouldn't strive to be as good as they can.

And as I said my perception of art and entertainment are two different things. They are. You could techically be amused by your **** in a box , but that wouldn't make it art. People are amused at the Jackass Films, which I am sure have people s***ing at some point, yet, not art lol.

I love pure entertainment. I also love art. What I would REALLY love is for them to be mixed, but much of the time mixed doesn't sell... which is why we don't get it.

While a few of you may love BB, Spidey, Hulk, X-men and SR. I tend to go for really "out there" films things that try to do things really different. Such as the upcoming Speed Racer. I can't get over how amazing to me it is that the Wachowski's went with a cartoon world...unfortunately, these movies are few and far between so I tend to just sit back and enjoy what I get. Unless it's so bad I can't find any enjoyment in it (-looks at 300- -looks at forum after saying that..- -hides-.)

P.S. I really don't know why they hand out oscars anymore! The last oscar winning film I actually enjoyed was the Departed. God I love that film.

 

[Sarg92]

Why are people moaning? And thinking too much about this one review of the FIRST DRAFT?!?

That's right, it is a review of the First Draft dated back in May, it has only had one negativeish review which people haven taken note of.

LL said that the script which was leaked is six months old and a lot of changes had been made to it to make it even better! He even told AD again that changes had been made for the better in the message about them wrapping up filming!

Just don't worry about it, the changes that have been made are good ones. Ones to please the fans and to make the movie even better. Just enjoy it for what it is.

Now give us a damn trailer! t:

 

[FrostBite]

Exactly, the only thing i disagree with you on is Transformers, which for me, wasnt a mindless action movie. When you think about it, the movie only had 3-4 MAJOR action scene's, all of the rest was character, emotion and heart, which TF had in abundance IMO.

However, i fully agree with all of the rest.

Ave! This is exactly what I was trying to say! You see the major shift in opinions?

Many people I know love it as well... but not for any character development but only action.

I have to agree with the other poster that it seemed like generic action movie...in fact I thought several characters were useless (people who think she's hot are going to attack me... but especially Megan Fox. I am not a fan of a love interest in every film for the sake of it.) but that doesn't mean someone else can't see much more in it. (like you)

This is all I was trying to say previously. So you could see TIH when it comes out as mindless like I did Transformers, but someone else can see it as a totally solid film.

 

[Scooter]

Ha, all right. Now here's the real kicker - you just told that to someone who loved Ang's film. My point is the preponderance of evidence - mainly ticket sales, which would speak to the movie's overall reception - is that, yes, people still hated it. I mean, have you been living on the moon that you haven't noticed 3 out of every 4 comments on the Hulk boards is a knock on Ang's film - literally, the repeated cries for a "real" Hulk movie that makes amends for the first one? Did you somehow miss the near-record (at the time) 69.7 percent drop on its second weekend - how everyone rushed out on its opening weekend to set a June record, only to mysteriously fail to return for second and third viewings? Seriously dude. It's not just me saying it - I'm merely reporting to you what I objectively see in the broader arena of fans and moviegoers alike. Besides, of what benefit would it serve to talk down the movie? I WANT the Hulk movies to succeed. If I talked down about the movie, I would be doing an incredible disservice to my own screen name. So, while it may all be fine and well that some of us did INDEED love the movie, don't give me this "unseemly, inaccurate, and unsupportable a platitute" b.s. over what really is an observable, accurate and entirely verifiable matter.

p.s. I loved Transformers.

I feel like this has probably been argued before, so, to avoid feeding this cycle further, I think I'll just cede the point - though I'll leave a few notes.

1) Yes, the ticket sales did suffer a huge drop after that first week - I think 70% was the record - clearly people weren't paying to see it. Though I'll maintain hate is probably excessive, it obviously didn't strike the right chord with the public at large (though, in the end, it wasn't a bomb, I believe). But does that mean it was a bad movie? Bad at selling tickets, maybe...

2) I haven't been living on the moon (my place there is being renovated), but I also haven't been spending time in this place. So I'll have to take your word on the "3 out 4 comments are a knock on Ang's Hulk" thing. But I think it's important to consider the source: an internet message populated by ardent fanboys, many of whom (if their grammar, spelling, and attitude are any indication) are quite young.

3) Congratulations on liking Transformers. I had some fun with it too. But it was still crap.

 

[The Joker_1000]

Predictions: How much money do you all think this movie will make worldwide before it leaves the theaters? I think it'll make well over 600 million dollars.

 

[The Joker_1000]

Edit: Double Post