I think we've all over analized the Hulk

[The Burier]

Hey guys. Hows it going?

Yeah I posted here a few times a while back but I've been checking in to see if anythings new.

Feeling pretty good about Hulk 2 so I thought I'd post something...

So I was watching Hulk again and I'm sorry but I still think the movie is untouched by any other comic-to-movie before or since.

I don't really know why the movie didn't do as well as some others like say..Spiderman.

Maybe because of the marketing, maybe because of the warm reviews or possibly because (And this would be my guess if I were a betting man) Hulk takes so long to show up.

But guys..i've read posts pointing out plot wholes, and bad performances etc. and I don't get it. Why is Hulk held to a different standard than other movies in its genre?

In Spiderman 1 Willem Dafoe checks in with one of the most ridiculous performances of his career equipped with a laughable scene with him talking to his mask, but people are calling Nick Nolte over the top?

I'm listening to people actually complaing about the cgi in hulk when in Spidey 2 there was so much cgi I could hardly watch it because it was impossible to take seriously...Most of what Spiderman does in the film just didn't work for me...

But then I see the Hulk and I don't see how the desert scene isn't hailed as the most awesome action sequence in recent memory.

I don't know..The Hulk was real to me..He seemed like a real being most of the time....Something that should be praised, not nitpicked.

ok so I guess some people just aren't going to agree but I think that there definately needs to be another movie and I think we all need to lighten up..

I know pleanty of people who thought Daredevil was a good film... even though I, as a sworn movie snob know that the movie was technically awful, as in not my opinion..It was bad in every carnation of the term (Other than the carnation that means good of course) This film bolsters a 90th degree black belt superchick in mild manor having an all out rumble with a blind guy on a children's playground in broad daylight!!! Trust me there's no fault in Hulk that even begins to approach this level of ridicule.

So for the next hulk movie I hope that everyone takes it for what it is...a comic book movie. My only worry is marvel will trade the original's class for the more mainstream b.s

 

[Sava]

lol... i agree with most of what you said, Defoe was both great at sometimes and really bad.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

The Burier, i also totally agree with everything you said. The Hulk seems to be ridiculed for making exactly the same mistakes as any other comic book movie. I cant believe there are people out there who think the Hulk is worse than Fantastic Four, Elektra, Daredevil (yes even the DC) or the Punisher. Now I do like three of those four movies (I cant stand Elektra), but, none of them are any near the quality of the Hulk movie IMO.

And Spiderman 1 & 2, Daredevil, X-Men 1, Elektra and FF all had worse CGI than the Hulk, yet the Hulk gets lambasted simply because the main character is CGI. I really dont understand it, and never will.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Hulk was a good movie, but it took itself too seriously. Too much plodding melodrama.

And for the record, I've never analized the Hulk. That's nasty.

 

[dogg420]

I agree with most of what you said except for Spider-Man 2's CGI. I thought the CGI was awesome and it looked a lot more realistic that Spider-Man 1's CGI. The Hulk indeed was a good movie. There was nothing about the movie that I didn't like. But it seems to me that at the time the media had to bash the hell out of the movie just for the fun of it. At the time, it was cool to make fun of the Hulk. And the people heard all the Hulk bashing, they just had to hop on the Hulk bashing band wagon and bash away. If you wanted to be cool, you just had to bash the Hulk. You had to call him the ugly green giant to be cool. If you wanted to be hip you had to call him Shrek on steriods. Idiots like Leno would contantly make fun of the Hulk for weeks because....well because he just had to be cool. To be honest with you with all the crap that's been said about the Hulk, I'm surprised that it actually made 134 mil at the box office which is almost in the same range as the F4 and X-Men 1. It's really sad when you think about it.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But the movie did get good reviews when it first came out, Empire and Total Film, the two most popular movie magazines in the U.K, both gave it 4 out of 5. So were the bad word of mouth came from i'll never know.

 

[Sava]

the leaked workprint, that had unfinished CGI, the wrong score, and everyone who saw it didnt like it, so the bad word of mouth spread like wild fire ... and it still got 60mill opening weekend

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I thought the score was great, perfect for the tone of the movie in fact.

 

[Sava]

the old score was ok, IMO, Danny Elfmans' is way way better

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What was the old score. Elfmans was the one i was talking about.

 

[Sava]

What was the old score. Elfmans was the one i was talking about.

if you download the workprint, that one has the old score for some reason, its still good, but Elfmans' s better

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I didnt even know there was an old score, why was it changed?

 

[Sava]

Universal didnt like it, so they fired the other guy and got in Elfman with like months before the release

 

[Sava]

http://www.bluntinstrument.org.uk/elfman/archive/LATimes03.htm go there Jamon

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I cant get sound on my computer as i am in university, i dont have the net at home, but thanks for the link anyway.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

(Spider-Man fan enters)

I think that SM2's CGI was some of the best CGI that I have ever seen. The first movie's CGI was mostly awful, but that doesn't have anything to do with the second one.

I loved Defoe's performance. Was he overacting? sure, but he knew where the line was. Nolte seemed like a drunk old coot, playing a drunk old coot! Not pretty.

Most of the Hulk's CGI was good (Not great) but some of it was down right awful. Like... all of the transformation scenes!

The movie failed as a film and boxoffice wise, because it had a director who completely dismissed comicbook movies from the get go. I think that most people can take a serious comicbook film. See Batman Begins 205mil. The director made a movie about a man who changes into a big green monster that didn't have a bit of humor or fun in it. Batman Begins has this, thats why it didn't tank. I don't think waiting an hour to see the hulk was the problem because lets face it the Spider-Man movies don't have alot of action and Batman doesn't appear in Begins until like an hour into the movie. The difference between the Hulk and those films is all in the little details. People liked Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne and most of all, they liked following the characters when they were out of costume. You can't say the same for the boring anemic characterzation of Bruce Banner. The most boring protaganist ever put to film. I (and most people it seems) didn't give too *****s about that zombie. Holding back anger doesn't mean holding back everyother emotion. (I hate Ang Lee for that very reason, he always does that boring crap!) Also, not only is the lead character boring every other character was too! And the first full hour of the movie is about a bunch of bored looking people spouting out suedo science. People were supposed to take to that? Hell no!
The movie isn't awful but it damn sure isn't good.

For the record:I thought that the Spider-Man movies, Batman Begins and Hellboy were good/great films. And i'll take the great fluff of Spider-Man than the anemic Hulk any day of the week!

 

[Sava]

I cant get sound on my computer as i am in university, i dont have the net at home, but thanks for the link anyway.

its not the score, its an article about what happened and why they had to bring in Elfman

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

its not the score, its an article about what happened and why they had to bring in Elfman

Oh, LOL, thanks

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

(Spider-Man fan enters)

I think that SM2's CGI was some of the best CGI that I have ever seen. The first movie's CGI was mostly awful, but that doesn't have anything to do with the second one.

I loved Defoe's performance. Was he overacting? sure, but he knew where the line was. Nolte seemed like a drunk old coot, playing a drunk old coot! Not pretty.

Most of the Hulk's CGI was good (Not great) but some of it was down right awful. Like... all of the transformation scenes!

The movie failed as a film and boxoffice wise, because it had a director who completely dismissed comicbook movies from the get go. I think that most people can take a serious comicbook film. See Batman Begins 205mil. The director made a movie about a man who changes into a big green monster that didn't have a bit of humor or fun in it. Batman Begins has this, thats why it didn't tank. I don't think waiting an hour to see the hulk was the problem because lets face it the Spider-Man movies don't have alot of action and Batman doesn't appear in Begins until like an hour into the movie. The difference between the Hulk and those films is all in the little details. People liked Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne and most of all, they liked following the characters when they were out of costume. You can't say the same for the boring anemic characterzation of Bruce Banner. The most boring protaganist ever put to film. I (and most people it seems) didn't give too *****s about that zombie. Holding back anger doesn't mean holding back everyother emotion. (I hate Ang Lee for that very reason, he always does that boring crap!) Also, not only is the lead character boring every other character was too! And the first full hour of the movie is about a bunch of bored looking people spouting out suedo science. People were supposed to take to that? Hell no!
The movie isn't awful but it damn sure isn't good.

For the record:I thought that the Spider-Man movies, Batman Begins and Hellboy were good/great films. And i'll take the great fluff of Spider-Man than the anemic Hulk any day of the week!

Well, i agree on some points, but disagree with most of what you said. IMO, Hulk is a better movie than Spiderman and slightly better than Hellboy, though both of those movies are great. I consider the only movies in the genre better than Hulk to be X2, Spiderman 2, The Crow, and by far the best, Batman Begins. Hulk is definately up there in terms of quality though IMO. And Hulks FX are the best of any comic book movie so far IMO also. Spidey 2's are mostly great, but there are a few too many dodgy moments for me, namely, the pizza delivery scene at the start, and pulling the power cables out at the end.

Hellboy and Sin City are just out of the top five i have mentioned above, and all the ones up there are very good movies. But Hulk definately deserves its place in there IMO.

 

[Atomic Crusader]

"Hulk" is a very, very fine film. I didn't realize just how good it is until I saw it on DVD. Few films depict the mircro and macro elements of life like "Hulk." It is a very disturbing film on many levels also. The story has a lot of depth. I can understand how many were disappointed with Ang Lee's vision, but great art is often easily misunderstood at first viewing, getting to know it on its own terms is how one learns from art. Once you "know" it, it becomes something else.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

"Hulk" is a very, very fine film. I didn't realize just how good it is until I saw it on DVD. Few films depict the mircro and macro elements of life like "Hulk." It is a very disturbing film on many levels also. The story has a lot of depth. I can understand how many were disappointed with Ang Lee's vision, but great art is often easily misunderstood at first viewing, getting to know it on its own terms is how one learns from art. Once you "know" it, it becomes something else.

Totally agree with you there Atomic Crusader. I have always said that if the people who didnt like this movie the first time they saw it, were to watch it again, i reckon half of them would come to love the movie.

 

[PhotoJones]

it's time to move on.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

So I was watching Hulk again and I'm sorry but I still think the movie is untouched by any other comic-to-movie before or since.

I don't really know why the movie didn't do as well as some others like say..Spiderman.

Maybe because of the marketing, maybe because of the warm reviews or possibly because (And this would be my guess if I were a betting man) Hulk takes so long to show up.

But guys..i've read posts pointing out plot wholes, and bad performances etc. and I don't get it. Why is Hulk held to a different standard than other movies in its genre?

It is...but some of it is self-inflicted.

In Spiderman 1 Willem Dafoe checks in with one of the most ridiculous performances of his career equipped with a laughable scene with him talking to his mask, but people are calling Nick Nolte over the top?

Agreed. Defoe was horrid. The absolute worst thing in Spidey 1. But there are many other good things in Spidey 1 to make up for it. With the Hulk, there aren't as many other good things to soothe Nolte's wretchedness. Think they both were trying to copy Jack Nickleson's performance in Batman....big mistake...it was overdone by Jack too.

I'm listening to people actually complaing about the cgi in hulk when in Spidey 2 there was so much cgi I could hardly watch it because it was impossible to take seriously...Most of what Spiderman does in the film just didn't work for me...

Most high-end CGI looks the same to me. It is the elements around it that make it work or not work.

A good example is Gollum from LOTR and the Hulk. Gollum talks, feels, and has a personality. So the audience believes him...he "looks real". The Hulk just stands around staring at things when he should be saying something and showing the audience that he is a real character in the movie instead of just a special effect. The audience has nothing better to do but notice the CGI with the Hulk...so he "looks fake".

Spidey has the advantage of using a guy in a suit during non-action scenes. But even then he showed a personality. Otherwise the suit may have looked "fake and stupid".

But then I see the Hulk and I don't see how the desert scene isn't hailed as the most awesome action sequence in recent memory.

Agreed. I own the DVD because of those scenes. Some of the most impressive action footage ever shot IMO.

P.S. Is it a little ironic to start a thread asking for less analysis of the Hulk....and it leads to more analysis of the Hulk?

 

[The Kid]

Roger ebert said it best. Something like "This is a comic book movie for non-comic-book fans"

And that's what I believed happened. People just didn't get the movie that was marketed to them as a michael bay, blow things up real good, movie.
there was drama, character study, dynamic change, all that stuff you find in a story like that.

Well for me, this was exactly what I expected. I did casual research on the film before going to see it, read a review or two to get an idea of what was going on and then got everything exactly as I pictured a live action hulk movie being and MORE. This was pure cinema bliss for me and still is to this very day.

We didn't over analyze. We expected spider-man. We expected macy gray to come in the middle of the movie. We expected some cheesy lines. We expected a live action silly comedy, not a serious drama. And most left dissapointed, I think, because they didn't get that, not due to over analysis. Bad cgi can be tolerated as we see with spidey films. It's high expectations that killed the incredible hulk.

 

[Cracker Jack]

what I believed happened. People just didn't get the movie that was marketed to them as a michael bay, blow things up real good, movie......

... It's high expectations that killed the incredible hulk.

LOL Yep. We expected a good movie.