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

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.
 
co2 said:
why is this even up for debate?

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

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

yeah, cause the Thing looked awesome, right?
 
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
 
Sava said:
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.
 
Dragon said:
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. ;)
 
Odin's Lapdog said:
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.
 
Sava said:
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.
 
Dragon said:
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
 
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.
 
Urgh, i hate this whole post disecting culture but so be it.

Dragon said:
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?
 
Sava said:
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.
 
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.
 
Dragon said:
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.
 
Odin's Lapdog said:
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.
 
AVEITWITHJAMON said:
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.
 
Sava said:
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.
 
Dragon said:
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:
 
Dragon said:
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.
 
right, you're choosing your arguments now and dropped some, progress....
Dragon said:
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.


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.
 
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:
 
Sava said:
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.
 
Odin's Lapdog said:
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.

Odin's Lapdog said:
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.

Odin's Lapdog said:
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.


Odin's Lapdog said:
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.
 
Dragon said:
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

  • C. Lee
    Superherohype Administrator

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,509
Messages
21,742,862
Members
45,573
Latest member
vortep88
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"