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
,, spidey
arker 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
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
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.