JeetKuneDo said:
You need a "link" to know what people were saying about the Hulk movie? How long were you in the mountains anyway?
Link about what SSH Hulk fans think. Delete Ang's movie or not:
And now I see why you don't like links to support what you say.
Anyway I just show you the way you like it: what people say. If this very poll was against Lee I wouldn't mind it, but since you pay so much attention of what other people say in order to generate your own opinions, there you are.
JeetKuneDo said:
True...a giant ape (a non-talking species) is exactly the same as a mutated human being (a talking species). (And keep in mind that we are talking about the character talking here.)
Keep in mind how stupid that would look.
JeetKuneDo said:
You mean...no one has ever made a movie with a talking Hulk? You mean that saying a talking Hulk would look stupid onscreen is an opinion based on nothing? Interesting.
Based on facts: no artist has thought it would be a good idea.
JeetKuneDo said:
www.youarestupid.com You really weren't around when audiences were gushing over Gollum and saying the Hulk looked fake? I don't know what to tell you, dude. Too many mountain vacations.
The real question is what the f^ck I care? Audiences have favoured sh^t like FF and tons of other crappy movies.
Trusting on audiences opinion is as pointless as a green monster talking in the third person about what he's doing (which in a movie is more than obvious).
JeetKuneDo said:
A talking Hulk would be a real character in the movie...which would automatically give him more dignity than Ang Lee's walking special effect.
A non talking Hulk WAS a real character in the movie...
And what's with the special effects? Do you think a talking Hulk would automatically mean a better special effects?
Totally different subjects.
JeetKuneDo said:
I don't think it would bother me if he talked in third person any more than Gollum's or Yoda's way of speaking bothered me. "Good it will be!" "It's the precious!"
Now if it spills over into Jar-Jar territory, then we have a problem.
But that's your own statement. Characters that talk have immediate personality.
Not that your statement was too brilliant.
Cracker Jack said:
What we got was a "What if?" version ("What if...Bruce's Father Created THE HULK???").
The whole Hulk concept is a big what if.
JeetKuneDo said:
What was wrong with the FF movie? I thought it was awesome. Audiences loved it. The sequel is on the fast track because people want to see it. I wouldn't be surprised if they make a 3rd one.
DD and Punisher were ok too. I wouldn't mind a sequel to either one. I own DD.
Mistery solved.
You love crap. You want Hulk to be a crap you can love.
And you love to follow what audiences say. That's for you the last and golden word.
Yeah, fantastic masterpieces, FF, DD, Punisher. The only way you know Catwoman was crap is because audiences said so.
JeetKuneDo said:
The exact words the Hulk uses isn't vital....just that he is allowed to communicate and be a real character in the movie.
Dear god, only way for a character to communicate: talking.
Your ignorance on the matter is only overwhelmed by that part of you which allows you to show us so openly your ignorance on the matter.
JeetKuneDo said:
The more I think about it, the more the original story might work. I was concerned that a "Gamma bomb" would put question marks over everyone's head in the audience...but a good script could explain what a Gamma bomb is in a few minutes. It wouldn't even have to make a lot of sense...just be a new kind of bomb that Bruce was working on. The one possible problem might be the "bomb" part. Would that work in today's climate? Maybe a new source of energy that would replace oil instead of a bomb?
You love the origin, now you wanna change it for... a bomb that replace oil??? With such great ideas why to complain about changing the origin?
HoratioRome said:
well in a way it kinda does because it means you're not THAT happy with the character as he IS. IOW, you may like the Hulk, but you don't like him THAT much because you have some major problems with him. His origin, his speech, and so on and so on. These issues, like it or not, distance your connection with the character.
So what?
Frankenstein is itself a great great idea. Even so, the book is not that good, that's why - as the Hulk - every incarnation have big changes and are not 100% faithful (not even Branagh's "so faithful" adaptation). The concept is better than the original source.
Being a fan doesn't mean to blindly follow every single detail (even the wrong ones). That's more of a geek.
HoratioRome said:
Others who DON"t have those issues, who actually LOVE the origin, love the way he speaks, and love the character completely are a little closer and are therefore MORE of a fan than you are. get it?
Totally not.
The fact you eat and swallow those details in no way proves that they're good. It just proves that you can eat and swallow anything.
HoratioRome said:
Done well, the Hulk speaking, even in the third person, would have added so much more depth to the character that you would have had a heart attack.
How so?
HoratioRome said:
We are NOT here to bash the movie.
I always thank a good laugh.
HoratioRome said:
We want to take what has worked for THIRTY years and give it a chance to be scene by this generation.
When you say 'we' you mean 'I', right?
New generations will always have comic books to read.
HoratioRome said:
Spider-man has done it with his movies, we just want the same for the Hulk. Stick to what has worked.
Only good thing Spiderman movie did was making money.