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

[Dragon]

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.

The Hulk movie was no more real world than any of the other films you mentioned. Bruce Banner's reaction to becoming superhuman is different from X-men, Spider-Man et al because he's a different person, with a different life experience, achieiving his powers under different conditions.

His reaction isn't more realistic, just more realistic for him. If he were born with his powers and spent his life having to hide them because of a fearful society, his reaction would be different. If he was a teenaged science nerd who got super powers accidently and was the product of a loving home, his reaction would have been different.

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.

The Hulk/Bruce is heroic. He does unselfish things even though his angry demeanor might make it appear that he won't. There's more to being a hero than putting on a costume going out looking for villain ass to kick.

And no- the film wasn't about his relationship with his father. There was no relationship other than David wanting to exploit Bruce. Bruce's relationship with David was no different than his relationship with Talbot.

That's an example of the weakness of the film's writing.

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,, spideyarker fantastic four:Thing) and the rest of them support with mediocre motivation.

That's a laughable point. And I'd be more than happy to see your take on the characters and their motivations, as well as how they're stronger than the other characters you mentioned.

But in a nutshell, as I'd mentioned above you're talking apples and oranges again. Different people with different backgrounds will react differently to the same phenomena.

Bruce had no motivation in the film. He was a cypher. He never did anything but react to what others did to him. That was another weakness in the writing. He had no drives other than in the beginning to make his theories real. After that he did nothing. If he had been trying to control his transformations or end his life or take an aggressive stance against Ross and his father, that at least would've been something. But he did nothing.

As for the psychological aspect, again, nothing. did Bruce try to understand himself and his motivations psychologically? No. Did anyone else try to look into Bruce's psyche for answers to controlling the Hulk? Nope.

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.

Where was that?

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.

It shows nothing of the sort. I wanted to see a tense psycholgical journey in search of self on Banner's part. Ang Lee simply didn't deliver. If anything, you're trying to rationalize your appreciation of the film by bringing up plot points that weren't there.

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 fulfillimg Bruce's moral imperative doesn't mean much. Many people with self-loathing issues will still rise to the occasion when needed. And fighting his father isn't even a valid argument. His fahter attacked him. He was merely fighting back.

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.

Dude, mindless MEANS without coherent thought.

i think you're mistaking my passive control for active control.

What?

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.

Not a very good theory, especially since you've been espousing that Bruce and the Hulk were on even keel. If Bruce's survival instinct was intact, and we know it was- he wouldn't have made the transformation while he was still in danger. And- if as you say the Hulk and Bruce were of a single mind, the Hulk wouldn't need to attack Bruce subconsciously.

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.

That was the MAIN trailer. As for TV spots, they're only 15 to 30 seconds long, and always emphasize the big action for EVERY MOVIE.

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.

Not really. Much of the younger audience hasn't even seen the original film.

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

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.

Whose talking about bringing in a new marketing crew? I'm saying that After the film was released, it was playing long enough and had ample opportunity for good word to be spread to bring in the audiences. The problem, again- is the movie- not the marketing.

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.

It has nothing to do with being misled. If the film was good people would've connected to it whether it was what they were "expecting" or not.

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.

People weren't saying it wasn't their cup of tea. That would indicate it was a good movie that they weren't interested in. But most people simply thought it was a poorly constructed film.

secondly, your vision for the hulk is some body builder in green with fake hands and feet?????? ...

Yup. Nobody had a problem with the concept in films like LOTR or Diehard.

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.

This isn't a problem at all. Superman is smaller than the Hulk, yet he pulls off feats of strength that are just as impressive. and naturally, when necessary they would shift the Hulk's size digitally, create CG props and environments. Which BTW- they still have to do with a CG Hulk.

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.

But that's the point. People loved the Hulk lo-tech, just because he was an actor that they could identify with. But when they were given a Hulk that was CGI, they didn't care.

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?

In a way, yes. True, the scenes were pretty bad to begin with. But as I'd said- they could have done more if they didn't have to spend money and man hours to get the CG Hulk to do simply tasks like turn his head and blink. I'm an animator and I know doing things like that can be time consuming. If an actor did most of the work, they could've put time into making more exciting action scenes, so that would've made the film more exciting. Also, as I'd said, if an actor was playing the Hulk, that would've drawn in people simply because they would've been excitied to see the actor who was playing the Hulk.

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.

It's the marketing crew's job to get people into the theater, and they succeeded. It's the filmmakers' job to keep people going back. And they failed.

There was no supreme chiklis loving as the thing to be honest, not like tobey/spidey or jackman/wolvie.

Actually there was. Most people felt he and Chris Evans gave the stand-out performances of the film. Even people like myself who hated the movie admit that Chiklis was good.

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.

Nonsense. He's in far better a position to judge. His opinion is a professional one, not that of a fan.

 

[thorstone]

This is stop motion animation thirteen years ago in test shot format:

http://www.darkstrider.net/gomorex.html

I have to say the skin on that looks better than the Hulk from the first movie, because it's real. You can't simulate that in a computer unless you have six years and a two hundred million dollar budget. You can however with a lot less money enhance it with computers creating motion blur, particle effects, smoke, fire, and liquids.

Also noteworthy, the Garthok from 1993:

http://darkstrider.net/video/Garthok


The technology and methods have advanced, I believe this is the budget wise path they should take.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

Still picking out points and not answering questions brought up, fair enough...

The Hulk movie was no more real world than any of the other films you mentioned. Bruce Banner's reaction to becoming superhuman is different from X-men, Spider-Man et al because he's a different person, with a different life experience, achieiving his powers under different conditions.

His reaction isn't more realistic, just more realistic for him. If he were born with his powers and spent his life having to hide them because of a fearful society, his reaction would be different. If he was a teenaged science nerd who got super powers accidently and was the product of a loving home, his reaction would have been different.

not necessarily realism in teh way the actual character deals with his abilities, rather realism in how the world as a whole has to say about having a super powered being. Without a doubt the first thing any civilization would do would be to hold such a being in captivity indefinitely to study it and experiement on it in order if they can gain any use of him to be exploited in military application. That's not happened in the spidey, or fantastic four, one can argue x-men with wolverine but not to the same extent. Spidey and fantastic four are seen as public figures, the hulk isn't and is barely seen by the public at all with his limited signs showin fear. He's not iconic and he's not fighting for the bigger picture nor does he have these fantasy ideals of thinking his alternate persona is going to make a big difference to the world yadda yadda yadda.

The Hulk/Bruce is heroic. He does unselfish things even though his angry demeanor might make it appear that he won't. There's more to being a hero than putting on a costume going out looking for villain ass to kick.

There is only one selfless act the hulk performs through out the film and that's saving the pilot's life, the rest were for himself. Even then, he's not particularly angry when he does so, until the pilot starts to agitate him again by increasing altitude. I don't know what heroic traits the hulk really showed, i mean i've seen more heroic traits from Doc Ock to be personally honest. As for banner, bar saving the life of rick which is what i would feel any good man would do in his position, i didn't find anyting about him remotely heroic either. explain why you think he is

And no- the film wasn't about his relationship with his father. There was no relationship other than David wanting to exploit Bruce. Bruce's relationship with David was no different than his relationship with Talbot.

That's an example of the weakness of the film's writing.

The film is centred around bruce's dormant thoughts about how his mother was killed and how his father's obsessiveness of his experiments led to creating his son who was only ever seen as an extension of his work.It also centred around Ross' relationship with david and how he believes the apple doesn't fall far from the tree while trying to protect his daughter and masking this all under the rug that is national security. Although david's means are similar to Talbot's one's looking to be the personal recipient of this while the other is looking to exploit it for his nation's use, especially since it's indeed hardly ever being seen (bar x2) that a father wishes to exploit a son (wasn't x2 after hulk, thus making hulk the first example of this in the genre) which puts a twist on it.

That's a laughable point. And I'd be more than happy to see your take on the characters and their motivations, as well as how they're stronger than the other characters you mentioned.

But in a nutshell, as I'd mentioned above you're talking apples and oranges again. Different people with different backgrounds will react differently to the same phenomena.

if you wish to think that way so be it, Peronally i feel that no matter how differnt people are, thrust into a certain situation, the outcomes are going to be similar and a certain number of things would need to happen. In real life a secret identity would be impossible to keep, you're own flesh and blood would sell you out, plus with surviellance around you're every move can be easily tracked. Secondly things like the acceptance of people around you with better abilities, In x-men they are hated, in fantastic four, they are cheered and adored, in spidey 2 he's unmasked and carried in a christ like fashion, his costume is sold for a measly 100 dollars, he hapilly punches a human ni the face 9-10 times in a fight WITH super powers and he doesn't go down.

motivation, cause and effect, feasible reactions, these are what i mean the most when discussing realism. No matter how different are backgrounds are, if we were both shot, we'd both bleed red, some marvel films would have their characters bleeding gold. Now i'm not saying the hulk as a film bleeds red yet i feel it's closer to red than the other films put out which sometimes i don't think get the feeling that they have even been shot.



Bruce had no motivation in the film. He was a cypher. He never did anything but react to what others did to him. That was another weakness in the writing. He had no drives other than in the beginning to make his theories real. After that he did nothing. If he had been trying to control his transformations or end his life or take an aggressive stance against Ross and his father, that at least would've been something. But he did nothing.

As for the psychological aspect, again, nothing. did Bruce try to understand himself and his motivations psychologically? No. Did anyone else try to look into Bruce's psyche for answers to controlling the Hulk? Nope.


But that's the thing, If bruce was left to his own demises, the hulk would never occur, he's not going out looking for trouble or looking to keep order but he keeps getting swallowed back in. Personally i thought that's what the character was about and how a hulk story was told. you put a normal man in an extraordinary situation and watch him react to it. It sounds like perfect hulk story telling to me.

you do realise that the film takes place in like a week time span or soemthing like that. The very night bruce realises he's transformed at betty's house the next day he's whisked off and contained. then he's experimented on, unleashed again, contained, sees father for the last time when he's off again.

There simply wasn't time to expand on that aspect of things. Again I mention, why would you want to end your life when first of all you are unaware of what you have become and secondly when you do become aware, it's the sole means of what protects your loved one from danger? Bruce banner has no reason to hate the hulk, not yet. All feasible for the sequel but in the first film, he was too busty needing him, nor did the hulk cause the fatality of anyone or seriously injure a bystander in order for him to viewed negatively.

again it goes back to cause and effect as i mentioned earlier.

Where was that?

every scene banner had with banner

It shows nothing of the sort. I wanted to see a tense psycholgical journey in search of self on Banner's part. Ang Lee simply didn't deliver. If anything, you're trying to rationalize your appreciation of the film by bringing up plot points that weren't there.

which plot points are these?

again you went in looking to watch another banner and another hulk and it wasn't what you got but there was nothing i feel (and it's only my opinion) wrong with incarnations we got because they fit the bill of the film they were in.

The Hulk fulfillimg Bruce's moral imperative doesn't mean much. Many people with self-loathing issues will still rise to the occasion when needed. And fighting his father isn't even a valid argument. His fahter attacked him. He was merely fighting back.

where does bruce say anything about self loathing, he describes himself as 'liking' the freedom the hulk provides. I don't know where you want all this 'wishing to destroy' the hulk persona to come from, there clearly isn't any evidence for it in the film,it just can't come from no where.

He turned into the hulk way way way before his father layed a finger on him, Bruce was ready to kick some heads in, it definitely wasn't like the confrontation with talbot where he was blantantly aggravated and that's what triggered his hulk transformation, Bruce was ready for a confrontation, nor was his temperment in any manner self defence, he wanted that battle done and dusted from the get go.

Dude, mindless MEANS without coherent thought.

What?

Bruce's underlying emotions controlled the hulk in that film, if only a lil at the beginning, then certainly more as the film went along, shown by his lil monologue to his father at the end. If this wasn't the case, how could he find his bearings out in the middle of no where and head to san fransisco, bite and spit the detonator of a missle warhead, save banner while falling and also know exactly where to land on that aircraft in order to shifts its momentum to not allow it to hit the bridge? Those are all signs of coherent thought to me. Considering how people in the west describe some primitive cultures as savage and mindless, i feel this is how a great man of science reffered to the hulk but it wasn't to be taken quite so literally as mindless. The hulk on film certainly wasn't out of control at any point and knew exactly what it was doing, there's no other way to go without hurting a single human being.

Not a very good theory, especially since you've been espousing that Bruce and the Hulk were on even keel. If Bruce's survival instinct was intact, and we know it was- he wouldn't have made the transformation while he was still in danger. And- if as you say the Hulk and Bruce were of a single mind, the Hulk wouldn't need to attack Bruce subconsciously.

He's unconscience, you have no control of your actions when you're out, adrenaline is running out, you know perfectly well that the transformations that occur aren't controllable. And i'm not saying there of one mind, i'm saying that there is a level of control. I mean the hulk found betty's house without ever ever seeing her before, there must be a part of him that can tap into banner's last conscience thoughts and eventually acts upon them, that's the level of control i'm talking about.

As the oxygen gets more thick, brain wakes up and hulk regains control, voila.

on a side note, how would you describe what's going on in that scene then.

That was the MAIN trailer. As for TV spots, they're only 15 to 30 seconds long, and always emphasize the big action for EVERY MOVIE.

it's certainly not to the same extent, the 'set me free' tv spot is basically a reduced desert scene and it was shown to children on every break, it's going to paint a picture.

Not really. Much of the younger audience hasn't even seen the original film.

but it's not a film for a younger audience, it's not especially marketed as a young audience film, neither was lotr, it was just made to encoporate the younger viewers so a family outing to the pictures could happen. And also so mcdonalds and toy companies could get a cut as well.

It's the stigmata of having a film based on a comic book where the violence and languageis limited, they are always going to be geared towards children.

look at the davinci code, it's the same rating as both of these films but in no way wouldsomeone say it's a children's film.

when making money, the lower the certification, the wider your audience but it in no way reflect the maturity of the film although in most cases it soemhow does.

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

you never answered this question earlier

Whose talking about bringing in a new marketing crew? I'm saying that After the film was released, it was playing long enough and had ample opportunity for good word to be spread to bring in the audiences. The problem, again- is the movie- not the marketing.

you don't see how much power marketing has over people. Look at the x-men 3 campaign and the superman returns campaign, they are MASSIVE, word of mouth can't work alone especially if you've already been mislead. A new marketing strategy would have to be taken and that costs a fortune, especially working under such pressure.

you do understand that if the first batch of people don't like it, that word of mouth is only goign to work against your sales rather than help boost them right?

It has nothing to do with being misled. If the film was good people would've connected to it whether it was what they were "expecting" or not.

not entirely the case, if you go into a restaurant wanting nothing but chicken and you don't get it, then you'er bound to be disapointted with what you finally end up with. The same can be said for anything which raises expectations., that's just plain human nature and others feed heavily off it. whole establishments are can spend their entire business carreers doing fine but one bad thing and they end up forfeiting everything and even if not true, their business is forever tainted by bad publicity.

People weren't saying it wasn't their cup of tea. That would indicate it was a good movie that they weren't interested in. But most people simply thought it was a poorly constructed film.

i agree with the concept of this but i don't see why someone would see it as being poorly constructed.

To be fair i wasn't too keen of it when i watched it on the cinema but it's DVD purchase had me liking it with every watch until it very quickly surpassed all the other current renditions of comic characters on film.

however to see it's poorly constructed is very harsh description of it, especially compared to other film sin its genre both who made more and less money than it did. But again my fan perspective doesn't reflect what the mass view thinks, luckily i'm not influenced by theirs either.

anyway to stay on subject, do you feel a man in a suit would have helped with the construction of the film?

Yup. Nobody had a problem with the concept in films like LOTR or Diehard.

where in diehard?

you want the hulk to look like a giant green hobbit?

alright, since you are a man of proportion, where are you going to get a seven foot body builder from with that kinda muscle mass?

This isn't a problem at all. Superman is smaller than the Hulk, yet he pulls off feats of strength that are just as impressive. and naturally, when necessary they would shift the Hulk's size digitally, create CG props and environments. Which BTW- they still have to do with a CG Hulk.

lou ferringo (sp) or any rendition of superman have never pulled off feats of strength to the same scale as the hulk before in movies, name one single one.

superman's plane saving one has yet to be revealed in returns but as somoen who studies aircraft i can already see inaccuracies with what they have come up with..

you do realise that they would be a large amount of size shifting occuring if they were to do that, a large majority of the desert scenes simply couldn't work with ahuman. Tank shells, tanks themselves, missles, aircraft rounds, they are all very large scaled pieces of equipment, he would look silly for most of those scenes which means digital work and real time filming would be needed for all of those scenes, why not just keep them digital and save the hassle?

But that's the point. People loved the Hulk lo-tech, just because he was an actor that they could identify with. But when they were given a Hulk that was CGI, they didn't care.

my point is that the would have cared more about the hulk if he was portrayed differently, it's not necessarily about the fact he's not real or not since there are non real charcters in real films that people have as icons, original king kong, golum, jessica & roger rabbit if we're going to 2d animation, it's the fact there wasn't anything to relate to. he was bigger better stronger than you and quite frankly knew it.

not speaking didn't help either.

again do you think if a human was to play that role as ang lee directed the cgi to play it, that the film would have been any better?

edit: you answer this below i've got it

In a way, yes. True, the scenes were pretty bad to begin with. But as I'd said- they could have done more if they didn't have to spend money and man hours to get the CG Hulk to do simply tasks like turn his head and blink. I'm an animator and I know doing things like that can be time consuming. If an actor did most of the work, they could've put time into making more exciting action scenes, so that would've made the film more exciting. Also, as I'd said, if an actor was playing the Hulk, that would've drawn in people simply because they would've been excitied to see the actor who was playing the Hulk.

you've got soem points but with the apparent gain of excitement comes increased cost of filming and special effects and time and also a reduction of the scale of what is achievable. An actor can rile up excitement but as you've noticed there already was a buzz to watch the film with just eric bana, the openings were large, it was the staying power that was a problem, how would having an actor/bodybuild that can act as the hulk help with that situation?
Don't forget that if you are having a human hulk you need to put nick nolte in a costume as well for the parts of the absorbng dad. Think of all those intricate costumes required and man hours spent on their design and also their fitting on a daily basis. unless you think it's fine for a human being to fight a cgi character. personally i don't remember any sort of fight like that ive enjoyed.

It's the marketing crew's job to get people into the theater, and they succeeded. It's the filmmakers' job to keep people going back. And they failed.

They both play a part but it's marketing's job to correctly portray the film and highlight why one would enjoy watching it rather than selling it as a summer blockbuster. Once you start selling a film as something it isn't then, you enter into problems.

Actually there was. Most people felt he and Chris Evans gave the stand-out performances of the film. Even people like myself who hated the movie admit that Chiklis was good.

really?

Nonsense. He's in far better a position to judge. His opinion is a professional one, not that of a fan.

a professional opinion would be one based within his field, ie talking about something to do with cgi and decisions that were made. When simply going another means should be used can one honestly say that he's completely thought about the causes and consequences of those means via time, money and convinience that such a decision would make, especially one that would affect his income?

which employer has ever said to his boss that they don't think they should have been hired for the job at hand anyway?




ahh these posts are taking up too much time, i'm just going to stick to the thread relevant points in my next reply, interpretation of the film and marketing points i'm not going to address anymore.

 

[Sava]

This is stop motion animation thirteen years ago in test shot format:

http://www.darkstrider.net/gomorex.html

I have to say the skin on that looks better than the Hulk from the first movie, because it's real. You can't simulate that in a computer unless you have six years and a two hundred million dollar budget. You can however with a lot less money enhance it with computers creating motion blur, particle effects, smoke, fire, and liquids.

Also noteworthy, the Garthok from 1993:

http://darkstrider.net/video/Garthok


The technology and methods have advanced, I believe this is the budget wise path they should take.

stop motion would take too long to do and how will they make him interact with real life thing?

 

[Dragon]

I disagree, the action scenes in the Hulk were good.

Well, let's put it this way- if you think those were good, then if the scenes were taken to a level that would impress me, you'd be blown away. Because there's no question that more could have done than what was shown.

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.

They won't think a painted green guy would look good? So I guess only painted blue people like Mystique, Night Crawler and The Beast can work? As for the wig- You think they couldn't create a wig like what was in the first movie? And you think painted fake skin would look better than painted real skin?

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.

James Cameron isn't the only director that can do a good film. And your comparisons on both the CG and suit levels don't apply to the Hulk. The Man-In-Suit applications aren't like the Hulk's body type, and as far as CGI, none of the characters from those films either look like the Hulk or were the main characters. The audience expects more relatability to the main character. It's okay if a supporting character is CGI, because it's about how the others react to them. And, no Kong really isn't the main character of that film. Anne is.

 

[Dragon]

Oh and BTW- I forgot to mention, the audience also accepted someone painted Red- (Hellboy). So I guess you guys are saying the color Green is the one unacceptable type of body paint?

 

[Sava]

Well, let's put it this way- if you think those were good, then if the scenes were taken to a level that would impress me, you'd be blown away. Because there's no question that more could have done than what was shown.



They won't think a painted green guy would look good? So I guess only painted blue people like Mystique, Night Crawler and The Beast can work? As for the wig- You think they couldn't create a wig like what was in the first movie? And you think painted fake skin would look better than painted real skin?



James Cameron isn't the only director that can do a good film. And your comparisons on both the CG and suit levels don't apply to the Hulk. The Man-In-Suit applications aren't like the Hulk's body type, and as far as CGI, none of the characters from those films either look like the Hulk or were the main characters. The audience expects more relatability to the main character. It's okay if a supporting character is CGI, because it's about how the others react to them. And, no Kong really isn't the main character of that film. Anne is.

1) i agree with you that there could have been more action stuff put into what we got. I still like what we got for the final product... except the last fight, that was s**t. You see, i dont think they got the best out of Ang for this movie, action wise i mean. Man in suit would work because its cheaper and easier to use. But why change it now?... Hulk would look way too different in the sequel and move different, act different. There is no use in changing IMO. Most of the money went towards creating stuff to make Hulk, now that they have it, wouldnt it be cheaper?, all the need to do is make Hulk look better.

2) oh please, Beast looks like s**t. Nightcrawler was ok but he wasnt the leading character in the film, if he was, you'd hear more people b**ching about it. Mystique actually looks great, i'll give you that.

3) JC IMO is the best at getting the most out of CGI or Make up or anything for that matter. He is the best at this, then i would say is Speilberg. Audience were able to relate to Kong, they knew how he felt, and the damn thing was a guerrilla. Hulk has to be able to show all the emotions we come to expect from him and we got that. In the 2nd movie, CGI should be better.

 

[Dragon]

1) i agree with you that there could have been more action stuff put into what we got. I still like what we got for the final product... except the last fight, that was s**t. You see, i dont think they got the best out of Ang for this movie, action wise i mean.

Ang Lee himself said he was given everything he needed, so if the film died it was his fault. Ang Lee is not an action director. People look at Crouching Tiger as though it was something revolutionary, but it wasn't. That type of film has a been made since the 1920's in Hong Kong. All he did was follow the standard model for making such films.

Man in suit would work because its cheaper and easier to use. But why change it now?... Hulk would look way too different in the sequel and move different, act different. There is no use in changing IMO. Most of the money went towards creating stuff to make Hulk, now that they have it, wouldnt it be cheaper?, all the need to do is make Hulk look better.

If it were only about being cheaper, then I wouldn't suggest an actor (Like I said, I don't mean literally creating a full body Hulk suit, which would be nuts IMO. The Hulk's skin should move, bend and shift like a normal human's and a full suit wouldn't look natural enough.). I honestly think it would be better. As for it being too different- so what? The first film isn't the standard. I doubt anyone would be seriously disappointed (outside of folks in this forum) that the Hulk looked different, as long as the film was well made (Which is a whole other hurdle for Marvel). And as far as cost- most of the money didn't go into making the Hulk. They have to pay the animators ALOT to do the animation, which in the Hulk's case would be extensive. There'd be no saving money because of the work on the first film. And if as you suggest, they spent time improving the Hulk's look, that would involve developing a new model anyway.

2) oh please, Beast looks like s**t. Nightcrawler was ok but he wasnt the leading character in the film, if he was, you'd hear more people b**ching about it. Mystique actually looks great, i'll give you that.

If the Beast looks bad, it clearly isn't because of his painted skin, but other factors. The point is, painted skin is not inherently cheezy looking as some here have suggested.

3) JC IMO is the best at getting the most out of CGI or Make up or anything for that matter. He is the best at this, then i would say is Speilberg. Audience were able to relate to Kong, they knew how he felt, and the damn thing was a guerrilla. Hulk has to be able to show all the emotions we come to expect from him and we got that. In the 2nd movie, CGI should be better.

Cameron is talented, but doesn't always hit the mark. Look at his Spidey script. It was horrid. There are directos out there who could deliver a really good Hulk film. They simply have to be carefully chosen. In Ang Lee's case, it was merely his rep.

 

[Sava]

Ang Lee himself said he was given everything he needed, so if the film died it was his fault. Ang Lee is not an action director. People look at Crouching Tiger as though it was something revolutionary, but it wasn't. That type of film has a been made since the 1920's in Hong Kong. All he did was follow the standard model for making such films.



If it were only about being cheaper, then I wouldn't suggest an actor (Like I said, I don't mean literally creating a full body Hulk suit, which would be nuts IMO. The Hulk's skin should move, bend and shift like a normal human's and a full suit wouldn't look natural enough.). I honestly think it would be better. As for it being too different- so what? The first film isn't the standard. I doubt anyone would be seriously disappointed (outside of folks in this forum) that the Hulk looked different, as long as the film was well made (Which is a whole other hurdle for Marvel). And as far as cost- most of the money didn't go into making the Hulk. They have to pay the animators ALOT to do the animation, which in the Hulk's case would be extensive. There'd be no saving money because of the work on the first film. And if as you suggest, they spent time improving the Hulk's look, that would involve developing a new model anyway.



If the Beast looks bad, it clearly isn't because of his painted skin, but other factors. The point is, painted skin is not inherently cheezy looking as some here have suggested.



Cameron is talented, but doesn't always hit the mark. Look at his Spidey script. It was horrid. There are directos out there who could deliver a really good Hulk film. They simply have to be carefully chosen. In Ang Lee's case, it was merely his rep.

1) Ang said that but he was being generous, I agree with you that Ang isnt the guy you hire to make a summer blockbuster.

2)So, your saying they should use Man in suit idea for like body shots? (like if Hulk's touching someone or his hand grabs something?). If thats what your saying then i agree %100. But i would still use CGI for action stuff, thats just me. THe Thing didnt look like he could move properly, maybe they did that on purpose, i dont know.

3) you are right.

4) i havent read the script, i just heard people talking about Spidey saying "mother f**ker" and shaging MJ on top of a bridge. I would still watch that movie, I think JC even with a script like this would have made a better Spidey film than what we have now.

 

[Dragon]

Still picking out points and not answering questions brought up, fair enough...

I answered all I felt was relevant. Based on the size of these posts I think conserving as much space as possible is necessary. If there's something you feel I missed, feel free to reiterate.

not necessarily realism... .

You see, that's where you're off. Of course reaction would be different to Spidey and the others you mention, vs. The Hulk, who did- in EVERY APPEARANCE cause extensive damage and presented himself as a threat.

And- as bad as the FF was- the cops DID go at the Thing as though he was a monster and a threat. It was because he saved lives of their own that he was accepted. And Spider-Man you'll note is seen by some as a menace, mostly based on Jameson's rabble-rousing. The X-men are certainly considered a threat and hunted. But because no one knows who they are and many mutants can blend in to society, it's hard to find them. It isn't as though the government can simply go in and arrest someone because they exhibit unique abilities. This isn't Nazi Germany. They go after the Hulk because he usually causes damage. You see a gigantic green guy knock down a building, you have reason to feel threatened.

He's not iconic....

Again, you miss the point of the Hulk. When Stan Lee created him, he took the Thing concept a bit further to show that a character can be a hero despite being rejected by society. The Hulk doesn't set up an HQ or wear a costume- but when it comes down to it he does the right thing. He doesn't have to.

There is only one selfless act the hulk performs....

Again you misinterpret. The Hulk wasn't saving the pilot. He was saving the civilians on the bridge. They were showing that the military is the real threat, not the Hulk. Saving the pilot was merely a by-product of his act. and- saving Betty was certainly selfless.

I don't know what heroic traits the hulk really showed, i mean i've seen more heroic traits from Doc Ock to be personally honest.

When was THAT?

As for banner, bar saving the life of rick...

If we're talking comics- saving Rick ISN'T what any good man would do. Many people who simply look at it as Rick doing something stupid and while sad, wouldn't risk walking into an explosion to save him. Secondly, throughout his existence as the Hulk he would stand and fight against threat, when he could simply escape. That's the point- he's misunderstood. And yes- at times he rages. But that's because he's attacked by the military. There are too many stories to go over, but often accidents are preceived by others as deliberate attacks on his part, so the Hulk is inturn attacked (See Avnegers #1 for an archetypical example). so his herois is about his decision to help those who hate him (a constant theme in Stan Lee's work).

The film is centred around bruce's dormant thoughts ...

And that has nothing to do with a Father-Son relationship. David was victimizer and used Bruce- as YOU NOTED, as an extension of his work. He didn't treat him as a son. So that's my point. There was nothing in their relationship that contained the unique father/son dynamic.

It also centred around Ross' relationship with david ...

That's not true and isn't even dealt with in the film. Ross refers to Bruce as collateral damage. He also says that he thinks Bruce was cursed, but not necessarily that he thinks Bruce is like his father. David's actions were deliberate. Bruce is a victim of circumstance (thus, "cursed"). It's also a very cheezy coincidence that Bruce and Betty would just happen to be working together in their adult-life.

Although david's means are similar to Talbot's....

The fact that David intends to use Bruce for his personal gain of power, vs. Talbot's wanting to make money off of him is a very slim and insignificant difference. the point is that both see him as nothing more than a pawn to further their schemes. and, even if Bruce weren't his son, he'd still want to use him as such. So again, there's nothing unique to the father/son dynamic there.

if you wish to think that way so be it....

Yeah? Look around you. Does everyone react the same way to death? To being given large amounts of money? To being told that someone loves them? And as I'd mentioned, the circumstances under which all of the characters you mention achieved their powers was very different. Thus their reactions would have to be different.

In real life a secret identity would be impossible to keep, you're own flesh and blood would sell you out,

That's ridiculous. You realize how many families keep secrets? Even when the secret hurts them? And anyway- in Spidey's case, his loved ones didn't know for a very long time. The FF don't have secret identites and neither really, do the X-men. Agasin in each case, the scenario is different.

plus with surviellance around you're every move can be easily tracked.

Surveillance only happens if there's a reason. There was never a reason to track Peter Parker or many characters from the X-men. If it were that easy to track someone, every potential terrorist would be locked up.

Secondly things like the acceptance of people around you with better abilities, In x-men they are hated,

X-men don't exist in the same world as the FF. Mutants in general are treated as a threat, which is reasonable considering that many have vast destructive powers. But they are also treated with prejudice, and that's why this is shown as being wrong.

in fantastic four, they are cheered and adored,

The FF as noted is a bad film. But the point- is that they are cheered due to their celebrity status. It's meant to reflect the way that we as a society give a "free pass" to celebs. It's nboth supposed to be good and bad that this happens in context of the FF.

n spidey 2 he's unmasked and carried in a christ like fashion...

Okay- you're talking about too many things that are completed unconnected.

About the christ-like carrying thing- He just saved their lives- and put himself at great risk to do it- how else would they have reacted?

His costume being sold for 100 bucks- yeah, tha'ts seems to little, but it was a homeless guy desperate for money, and really has little to do with society in general's reaction to Spidey.

And punching someone in the face repeatedly? Uh.. If you mean Ock- you have to remember two important things- 1. Spidey is trying not to kill him, which means he has to pull his punches. 2. This is is very difficult to do, especially when your target is also moving fast and trying to kill you. So he errs on the side of caution and keeps his punches as light as possible.

motivation, cause and effect, feasible reactions...

WHAT? Anyway, something like bleeding or reacting to being hurt is consistent in the films. But what's different is how they react to having the powers, and how people react to them. Again- are you telling me if Spidey drop from a building and landed next to you, you'r reaction would be the same as if the Hulk dropped from a mile up, caused a near earthquake and created a crater that you'd probably fall into?

And- you're telling me that you'd react the same way if you suddnely discovered you had superhuman agility, ability to climb walls and super strength- as you would if you transformed, very painfully I might add- into a giant destructive creature that you had no control over, barely remembered what you did and scared the crap out of everyone around you?

Now i'm not saying the hulk as a film bleeds red...

Again dude- you're comparing different things. The reactions have to be different. Bullets don't hurt the Hulk. Bullets hurt Wolverine, but he heals afterward. Spidey doesn't heal very fast but he does, and bullet hits would hurt like hell. At the same time he's fast enough to dodge gunfire so why would he take a hit. Wolverine and the Hulk aren't fast enough to dodge gunfire. All very different dynamics.

But that's the thing, If bruce was left to his own demises, the hulk would never occur....

Not at all. His reaction was to do nothing. A strong character- a SCIENTIST no less- would have demanded, begged for the means the study and try to heal the situation. Bruce didn't.

you do realise that the film takes place in like a week time span or soemthing like that.

You don't know that. You don't know how long he was held when Talbot wanted to extract samples from him, or the amount of time that past while he was held when his father was allowed access to him (Another ridiculous story point on so many levels.)

The very night bruce realises he's transformed at betty's house ...

The point is that during that time Bruce would have been trying to do SOMETHING to get the situation under control (At least if he was a strong leading character). Trying to leanr why he'd transformed and how to control or stop it. And Betty for that matter, if she loeved him would've been trying to protect him. Going on the news and going to the ACLU. Not setting up meetings between him and his crazy, murderous father, when Ross was threatening to kill Bruce if he started to change again.

There simply wasn't time to expand on that aspect of things.

Then maybe Ang Lee should have written the script to include time for this. It isn't as if he had to use the story given. And considering the the psychological aspect is the most interesting thing about the story- he should have.

Again I mention...

Bruce would go through a host of emotions. He'd consider many things. He'd feel exhilerated by possessing so much power. He'd have fear for the damage he might cause or potential casualties. He'd feel sad because Betty likely would not want to live with him that way. He'd feel bad for being a fugitive. He'd feel angry that ross and the others would so quickly want to kill him. He'd consider suicide because that might bring him some peace. And again- he nearly choked Betty to death. If he had done that in hulk mode, she'd have been crushed like a grape. He didn't know what he was capable of. For all he knew, the Hulk could've become more savage and depraved. That's why I say he should have immediately attempted to study and try to control the Hulk.

Bruce banner has no reason to hate the hulk, not yet...

He had reason to fear the Hulk. Look at what happened at the first transformation. He wrecked the lab. If there were people in the building as he brought it down they could've been killed. When he tossed the gamma sphere he couldn't see where it went and it crushed a police are. what if someone was in there?

which plot points are these?

The father-son dynamic for one.

again you went in looking to watch another banner and another hulk..

I went in to see a good film, and you're right, that wasn't what I got.

where does bruce say anything about self loathing, he describes himself as 'liking' the freedom the hulk provides...

I'm not fixated on "wishing to destroy" the Hulk. I keep suggesting that that is only one of several options Bruce would entertain. But as Cracker Jack reminded me- Bruce does say in the film that he intended to isolate and destroy the Hulk. How did you miss that? But about the self-loathing- I'm saying that would be realistically inherent in the character's persona due to his path. Children from abusive homes often feel that it's their fault. The idea of the Hulk and Banner in the comics hating each other is a clear example of self-loathing, since they are the same person. Banner never felt it was cool that he was the Hulk. Only at times necessary. His "liking it" is that for the first time he felt free. It's just not a good thing that it involved a near mindless creature taking him over to do so. He'd rather expereince that freedom as Banner, having a happy life with Betty. But Ang Lee didn't deal with any of that.

 

[Dragon]

He turned into the hulk way way way before...

Watch the film again (I'm apologize for suggesting that). Bruce only begins transforming when David goes haywire and starts absorbing the electricity and then Ross tries to fry him. Then David grabs him and blasts them out of the facility. David then attacks him in order to absorb the Hulk's power. He's fighting out of self-defense.

Bruce's underlying emotions controlled the hulk in that film...

You're confusing coherent thought with instinct. Animals who can't reason can still find their way home or attack an object they know is a threat.[/quote]

The hulk on film certainly wasn't out of control..

That was in the script. The tank driver and the helicopter pilots would have died if there was any hint of reality. And I'm not saying the Hulk was totally mindless. I'm just making the point that He certainly doesn't do everything based on GUIDANCE from Bruce Banner. He functions on a combination of instinct and a very mininal amount of control from Bruce's subconscious.

Anyway, the Hulk not being able to speak tells you he wasn't really in control.

He's unconscience..

Dude, you need to read the comics. The transformation is to a point controlled. At least back to Banner. He either transforms because the danger is past, or a chemical agent causes the transformation (His gamma machine, certain gases, etc.). He can be unconscious and remain the Hulk. And whenever there's danger he'll immediately transform.

And i'm not saying there of one mind, i'm saying that there is a level of control. I mean the hulk found betty's house without ever ever seeing her before, there must be a part of him that can tap into banner's last conscience thoughts and eventually acts upon them, that's the level of control i'm talking about.

We're see-sawing on this. There is a level of subconscious control and instinctive reaction on the Hulk's part. My point is that you're over-emphasizing the balance in the wrong areas. He doesn't go to save Betty because "Bruce controls him". He goes because Bruce knew she was in danger, and this sticks in the Hulk's mind after the transfromation. If Bruce were really in control, then he'd have transformed into the Hulk immediately after his father tells him that he's going to kill Betty, and not have waited until Talbot was beating him up.

As the oxygen gets more thick, brain wakes up and hulk regains control, voila.
on a side note, how would you describe what's going on in that scene then.

If they had shown the transformation start, then you'd have a point. But they don't. The scene is just another misfire. It was just a way to wake the Hulk up so he wouldn't drown by not holding his breath.

but it's not a film for a younger audience, ...

Fantasy-Adventure films are generally geared to a younger audience. If there was extensive nudity, sexual situations and less emphasis on action, cursing, and certain types of graphic violence, then it would be considered an adult film. And those films all had toy lines and video games.

It's the stigmata of having a film based on a comic book...

I think you mean stigma- "stigmata" is what leaked from Jesus' wounds during the crucificxion.

Anyway, why shouldn't children be able to enjoy comic films? Stan Lee and his crew were smart enough to genreate characters that appealed to a wide range of ages. The movies should also reflect this.

you never answered this question earlier

Would I love the power? yes. But not losing FULL control of my life. Not living like a fugitive.

And as far as comparing the Hulk and Kong films- yes you can. In fact, I firmly believe that Ang Lee was going for the Kong concept in his approach, which is why he made Bruce such a weak non-aggressive character. The point is, he failed, because that's not what the Hulk is supposed to be.

you don't see how much power marketing has over people...

Marketing only matters up until release. And the point is- that it succeeded. Everyone knew the Hulk was in theaters and the opening weekend reflects that. So, IF it was such a good movie, then the audience of folks such as yourself who loved it would have been able to find it and support it.

you do understand that if..

How is it that this wonderful film you guys are defending got poor word of mouth from EVERYONE? simply because it .. what? didn't have enough action? Didn't show the Hulk enough?? Cause.. The Hulk has as much screentime as Spider-Man, and both films have equal amounts of action. So if those folks love Spidey, they'd love the Hulk as well.

not entirely the case...

The Hulk had what the audience was expecting. It featured a superhuman character that did heroic things and it had plenty of action. Face it, what was there just wasn't any good. The story was incoherent and jumbled. The main character was boring and the villain was cheezy.

however to see it's poorly constructed is very harsh description...

Back when the film was released I went extensively through the film expressing what I felt were its flaws. It's been a long time so I don't remember everything. But bascially the story went nowhere. I'll say again that I'm not a fan of mindless, pointless action. I wanted to see a powerful drama and psychological plot line. Yes, I wanted HUGE action where appropriate. In fact I think there was enough action scenes. The problem is that they, like the story were poorly realized. The Hulk dog fight wasn't big enough (Also, the Hulk dogs were a poor choice to begin with). 4 creatures with that much power locked in savage battle would have deximated the forest. The Tank and Chopper fights were slow and also not very spectacular. And the fight with David was nonsense. Again, poor chocie of villain, weak choreography.

anyway to stay on subject, do you feel a man in a suit would have helped with the construction of the film?

Only to a point. With the script they had, it wouldn't have helped very much. other than making the Hulk more relatable, and allowing for bigger action because they would have had to use less animation.

where in diehard?

Bruce wore prosthetic feet to keep him from injuring his own feet.

you want the hulk to look like a giant green hobbit?

To a point he does look like a hobbit. He has disproportionately large feet and hands. Granted, I wouldn't care if the actor had them or not, but this is the excuse so many folks use for why the Hulk had to be CGI.

alright, since you are a man of proportion..

The CGI Hulk didn't have very great muscle mass. That's part of my point.
Secondly, you vary it per shot. At times you'd have to green screen the actor and increase his size digitally. At other times you use other teicks such as camera placements, making proportional props and so forth.

lou ferringo (sp) or any rendition...

Well first I'll list Superman. Lifting a helicopter. Lifting gigantic boulders. Re-directing a missile. In the new film he saves a plane. As for Lou, true, they didn't show him doing those things. But that's because the show didn't have the budget or inclination top make the Hulk that powerful. Remember bullets hurt him. But- if they wanted to show it, they could have. Just as they can show the CG Hulk lift a CG tank, they can show an actor do it.

superman's plane saving ..

Just like there were inaccuracies with the CG Hulk tossing the tank.

you do realise that they would be a large amount of size shifting ...

You're trading one hassle for another. Animating the Hulk takes just as much time. And you can't say it would look silly with an actor. You're saying, what, that showing an actor punch or throw things would HAVE TO look bad? Just because YOU can't imagine how to shoot the scene doesn't mean it can't be done.

An actor can rile up excitement ....

The same way Lou created excitment on the series. People loved Bill Bixby and Lou for different reasons. And merely the sexiness factor creates an additional dimension. For example women fantasized about Lou because of the power and savagery of his character. Same would apply here.

Don't forget that if you are having a human hulk...

Well again, Absorbing Dad was a poor choice of villain. But- The hero can FIGHT CGI monsters- just as in LOTR the heroes fought the CG Ogres and other creatures.

They both play a part...

Marketing did correctly portray the film. Only you guys making excuses for it thinks they didn't. Bottom line, I and every one I know that didn't like the movie didn't walk out saying "That wasn't the movie the trailers and commercials suggested" We all said- That movie sucked. Period. Just as we thought films like Godzilla '98 sucked. Not the ads- THE MOVIE.

really?

Yes.

a professional opinion..

Actually that's EXACTLY what it was. He makes his money doing CG animation. So if he said the man-in-suit route was the way to go, meaning he'd LOSE money, that means something. He's saying artistically, CG was too limited to generate a believable, relatable Hulk. And he's right. You can't compare characters like Gollum of Kong, because Kong is an ape, not a man- which the Hulk is expected to be. And Gollum is creepy, which the Hulk is NOT expected to be.

 

[Dragon]

2)So, your saying they should use Man in suit idea for like body shots? (like if Hulk's touching someone or his hand grabs something?). If thats what your saying then i agree %100. But i would still use CGI for action stuff, thats just me. THe Thing didnt look like he could move properly, maybe they did that on purpose, i dont know.

That's pretty much what I mean. There's no way to amek a sci-fi/action film these days without CGI.

AS for the Thing- yeah, I guess they wanted him to seem lumbering. And I agree that much was a mistake. But maybe- MAYBE they felt he should be that way in the first film but as he gets used to his condition he'll get faster. One of the things I highly agree with Ang Lee about is in making the Hulk able to move fast.

 

[Hugebear]

It wasn't made properly and didn't capture what the Hulk is about.

Isn't the Hulk about Bruce Banner getting hit with gamma rays and turning into a green monster who has incredible strength. Then the army wants to stop him.
And yes the comics did have Banner hate or fear the Hulk, but there wasn't enough time in the movie to go into this. And no Lee didn't need to write it into the script. There was too much going in the story already that he needed in his movie.

 

[Marcus M.]

I say a body builder in body paint, using special-effects to make him look bigger.

 

[Sava]

That's pretty much what I mean. There's no way to amek a sci-fi/action film these days without CGI.

i'd take that

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

ah dragon, you're killing me with this dissection...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm sorry, but IMO CGI is the ONLY way to go, a bodybuilder would look rediculous, you want reasons for CGI, here:

1) The Hulk is something unique and monstrous, he needs to look that way on film. A body builder would not capture that.

2) The foundation is already layed down in the first movie, we need some continuity in the sequel.

3) In order for the action to be better in the sequel, bigger feats than throwing tanks, etc are needed, again a bodybuilder could not lift a frigging tank.

4) Hellboy looked great, as did Abe Sapien, but Thing, Beast and Juggernaut all look less than average IMO. And they were all human-ish proportions, but when the proportions go bigger than this, we get Hyde out of LXG, who i thought looked bad, or we get CGI, in both Hellboy and LOTR, when the proportions got bigger than even the biggest human, PJ went with CGI.

5) Kong, the cgi now is much better than in 2003, so imagine it in 2008.

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

I answered all I felt was relevant.

as for this, to go and find the questions in questions would take forever so i'll let them slide

You see, that's where you're off. Of course reaction

Alright, this comes down to personal intepretation of what would occur at the following events. If someone is 'visually' different no matter how slight and they are performing acts in public places, no matter how good or bad then there are bounds to be levels of unacceptance. That's how i feel but i understand if you feel different. Again i don't want to really detour from the original topic.

And- as bad as the FF was- the cops DID go at .

I really felt the fantastic four were treated with some leniency (sp?) but again that's me.

Spidey's hatred although assumed via news sales was never shared by any member of the public in both films, based on public reactions he truelly is an accepted character.

the x-men are not accepted but are tolerated as mutants with so called mixed reactions although we never really got to see any humans being accepting of their mutant abilities throughout the films. And the extent of the hulk's damage 'before' he was initially taken in for questioning was seen to be the damaging of parts of two buildings and parts of a car. The x-men with the brotherhood in their first film damaged a public place (train station) while magneto also threatened dozens of policement. You see i don't mind this because the hulk was tipped off by the betty to get his location but there was no follow up for the x-men or brotherhood. one can argue there was enough surveillance to at least go after the x-men since their location was already known by the government. I mean it's been done in teh comics before where the government has gone after the x-men based on acts that magneto has done. Saying this, they did go after them in the second film. My problem really isn't with the x-men as they deal with things far better but still trying to exploit mutants moe for military application would have been something i would have liked to see more of (kinda implied with wolvie but there are far more applicable pupils/mutants).

Again, you miss the point of the Hulk. When Stan Lee created him, he took the Thing concept a bit further to show that a character can be a hero despite being rejected by society. The Hulk doesn't set up

hmmmm, i'm not sure if i would class the hulk as a superhero as far of the rest of them go, i mean he's fighting good guys just as often as he bouts with the bad guys.

Again you misinterpret. The Hulk wasn't saving the pilot.

Well you say to me later on in this that because we don't see a certain scene, you're not going to buy my interpretation of it. Yet you have a scene where airforce pilots are taking aim at a civilian structure in order to take down the hulk, there are no views of people in danger or of these dangered people when the hulk is deciding to jump on the Raptor. nor is there are reactions shown from the general public.

for me that scene was showing the hulk didn't see the military as enemies, rather than a hinderance on his journey. So he wasn't going to watch one die if he had a chance to save them.

and saving a love interest is not selfless, you're emotionally tied in with them, you have plenty to lose from their demise.

When was THAT?

Ock Taking the bullet and drowning his fusion reactor. He balanced out the lives of those in the cities in compares to his and spidey's and decided to sacrifice himself to perhaps redeem himself for what he's done. If the same act was done by spidey, everyone would be saying he died a heroic death. surely replacing the hero with a villain wouldn't change this fact?

If we're talking comics- saving Rick ISN'T what any good man would do.

again this just comes down to a level of morality we've defined personally. i feel this is what any good man would do in the film's situation.

Secondly, throughout his existence as the Hulk he would stand and fight against threat, when he could simply escape. That's the point- he's misunderstood. And yes- at times he rages. But that's because he's attacked by the military. There are too many stories to go over, but often accidents are preceived by others as deliberate attacks on his part, so the Hulk is inturn attacked (See Avnegers #1 for an archetypical example). so his herois is about his decision to help those who hate him (a constant theme in Stan Lee's work).

yeah i agree with all this, i don't know what point you're making with it, i'm on the same lines.

And that has nothing to do with a Father-Son relationship. David was victimizer and used Bruce- as YOU NOTED, as an extension of his work. He didn't treat him as a son. So that's my point. There was nothing in their relationship that contained the unique father/son dynamic.

you see for me, that is the father/son dynamic. i wrote something here but acidentally erased it .

That's not true and isn't even dealt with in the film. Ross refers to Bruce as

Right, i seem to be using the word relationship very loosely, I meant Ross' views of Banner eventually turning out like his father and killing a close loved one, aka betty. I do personally feel that although not psychologically similar, ross is happy to treat david and banner in the same light since he feels bruce would eventually end up doing what his father did.

The fact that David intends to use Bruce for his personal gain of power, vs. Talbot's wanting to make money off of him is a very slim and insignificant difference. .

Again i feel the fact that david wishes to use his own flesh and blood for his own purposes is bigger than the military application of talbot's work. I'm Happy to disagree with you there.

Yeah? Look around you. Does everyone react the same way to death? .

Not the same but very similar, the mourning and grieving effect is similar. People act similar when they are scared, afraid, happy, when hurt, when let down, when excited. It's noticeable. Again i'm not saying that it's all the same but put the majority of people through a similar situation and you'd expect them to react in a certain way.

my point is if you put a thousand people in parker's position of losing his uncle, how many of us would turn into vigilantes? I can honestly believe none would and would rather put their abilities into earning big buck to support their aunt in sports entertainment, that's how i feel that the guilt would mostly manifest itself as, while he would still be able to persue his academic goals etc.

but that's fantasy, amasing fantasy 15 to be honest, and i'm fine with that. Saying this, i feel the choice of actions taken by bruce i feel were more grounded since he reacted heroicly to situations rather than went out looking to be consciencely perform an act of heroism yadda yadda.

That's ridiculous. You realize how many families keep secrets? Even when the secret hurts them?

you also realise how many families put their loved ones into care because they are persuaded that this course of action is the best for the indicidual, i don't see why the same can't be said if persuaded giving over a loved one is the best course of action to take. heck even betty took it.

MJ's non interest in how his powers manifested seem a lil strange, harry's are acceptiple since he's in shock but that can be expanded. what i don't understand are the dozen people who unmasked him were unwilling to take a picture of their saviour to place in a paper. As you said, not everyone is going to react the same way to a situation yet it's fine to have everyone in a carriage 1st spidey fans, willing to keep the identity of a hero or not sell it to a paper (knowing who it is or isn't at that time is irrelevant to the fact, such things can be extrapolated by the media).

Surveillance only happens if there's a reason.

Well there will always be a reason to track the x-men or fantastic four, who can say that their actions will be genuine indefinitely, to not be prepared i feel would be a foolish decision to take. Skyscrapers are heavily monitored especially post 9/11, to say spidey can swing onto a building with a pizza and change, not be found out i feel is beyond me. Plus it's not like a terrorist who tries to remain in hiding, spidey is out during daylight, it's not like he's keeping under wraps. One can always say 'spidey sense won't let it happen' but there is little evidence of it being used for keeping identities in the films shown so far, if any. I think it would be more than feasible for a character to find out peter's identity. I mean private parties with no government ties or powers have managed to find out his identity in the past in comics before, i don't see why it wouldnt' be feasible in a real world situation.

X-men don't exist in the same world as the FF.

gathered

Mutants in general are treated as a threat,

This is because there are enough of them to stand up for themselves as a minority, the ff are four individuals, they practically shouldn't have a voice. i'm surprised how they were taken in with loving arms even though i felt they should have either been mobbed by the general population and taken into protection by the police or examined for government application. Again, that's just how i would feel would occur if they popped up today no matter how many people they saved on their debut. Saying this, the ff are immune to this in all medias and comic worlds for some reason.

The FF as noted is a bad film. But the point-

fine i can understand their reasoning behind the initial reaction from the public, but it's the quick acceptance and adoration i find strange, but meh.

Okay- you're talking about too many things that are completed unconnected. About the christ-like carrying thing-

I certainly HONEST TO GOD, would be taking a picture of his face, I SWEAR. Not only that but i would be looking for a safe way to get off the train before ock came back, ya gotta look out for numero uno...

His costume being sold for 100 bucks-

tramp or no tramp, a tramp wouldn't sell the world's biggest diamond for 30 bucks purely because he was hungry. The sheer importance of such a garment was underlooked considering how much it's worth realistically. A simple picture of Angelina and brad babies when it's born is apparently worth millions, a genuine superhero costume and exclusive rights to it is potentially worth tens of millions. The reflection the amount of money has on the costume counter reflects all the adoration we've seen by the public for the masked figure. All public reactions to him have been insanely positive, at the bank he has girls chasing after him, he's an unber celebrity yet his costume is undersold on purpose (it's not like JJJ has even haggled for it and is happy with the deal) and his unmasked face on the train is just taken as it is. the realism of real world green isn't shown in this film which is fine and dandy but i'm saying it's explored in the hulk which i feel makes the world it's set in closer to the one we are in now. I mean everyone the hullk comes into contact with tries to exploit him at one point or another, it's typical of those with a positio of power.

And punching someone in the face repeatedly?

don't let me get started on the 'punch holding' argument. it doesn't stand to debate to be playing possume when the life of your only living relative is held in the balance. Ock got about four fists to the face, a head butt, a knee in the stomach and a back fist to the face, all unanswered for, pretty much in a row while being rolled off a building and falling with spidey. even if you take the average teenage boy and told them to give that damage to the average middle aged man, dude goes down, let alone agitated superhuman while his aunt hangs for her dear life.

there was no time for pussyfooting and although his actions showed this, the fact ock didnt go down again goes against it all, especially when in the first film spidey was taking out crooks just for a photo op with one hits to the face. The punch pulling doesn't stick.

ps spidey was in total control of ock during that whole scene and his face was always inches away from his. so the movement argument isn't applicable here.

WHAT? Anyway, something like bleeding or reacting to being hurt is consistent in the films. But
And- you're telling me that you'd react the same way if you suddnely discovered you had

the bleeding argument was simply a metaphor, not something i was pickign up on.

alright, spidey and ff both made heroic debuts in public places, both were treated differently for doing similar things, I suppose you can say saving a firedepartment may get you more kudos than simplly taking down criminals an that spidey hasn't actually had any tv limelight but ff are openly accepted while spidey is 'apparently' hated by some. maybe this is because of the mask of something (which i don't understand because the public seem to love him).

i don't see why spidey and the ff are treated differently by the media really, i would see them in the same mould.

and i don't see why mutants aren't treated similarly to the hulk, ie under government wraps, at least some of them.


ha the second transfomation sounds like some of my friends after a night out drinking, haha.

React differenly, yes i would and they did. however if i turned into the hulk and i had the course of events that bruce did i would be more likely to follow his footsteps rather than follow the footsteps of parker if i had gained powers and uncle had died. and i certainly wouldn't get it with a girl i was trying to protect because she was stubborn

Again dude- you're comparing different things. The reactions have to be different. Bullets don't hurt the Hulk.

bleeding was really a metaphor dude, not to be taken literally...

Not at all. His reaction was to do nothing. A strong character- a SCIENTIST

dude had just been out as the hulk, you know how hungry and tired that makes you? He didn't have time for any self healing. And i don't see why he would because he needed the hulk for a portion of what we saw going on.

In the timeframe of the film he simply wasn't given the time for these types of analysis.

You don't know that. You don't know how long he was held when Talbot wanted to extract samples from him,

The relative time here is what is important. for both of the times you mention, banner is being held as a captive, i certainly wouldn't let any captive of mine try to attempt to cure himself while trying to extract samples from him. With one failed attempt there is nothing to say the army had stopped trying yet were just waiting for another better opportunity to do so, could well be examined in the sequel.

All i'm saying is that what was going on around banner, his mind was more than likely dealing with the situation he was put in rather than trying to deal with what he had become. The way the footage is presented, the timeframe isn't far off the orinal hypothesis of around a week, a busy week at that. Time for self-examining was not permitted.

The point is that during that time Bruce would have been trying to do SOMETHING to get the situation under control (At least if he was a strong leading character). Trying to leanr why he'd transformed and how to control or stop it. And Betty for that matter,

At betty's house even when undershock he pretty much gives a diagnosis of his condition with betty on the spot when realising what's happened. he knows why he transforms, hence why he knows to stop when talbot attacks him while in his cell and try and remain calm.

as said before, Betty's perception of doing the best thing for bruce isn't necessarily going to be to keep him hidden away, she thought she was doing the best thing for him at the time. By the end of the film she knows better, it shows growth.

Anyone's wish to see their son before they go on is more than likely to be answered especially if they offer co-operation, people shouldn't go back on their words when promises are made on such situations. but again open to interpretation.

Then maybe Ang Lee should have written the script to include time for this. It isn't as if he had to use the story given.

well there is plenty of time to show this in a sequel, it's not a problem. On the story Ang was trying to tell, that development would not have helped but that's fine because it can be fully exploited in a sequel.

Bruce would go through a host of emotions.

perhaps, although banner never showed any signs of fear towards the hulk (shock at best but not fear), so it brings reason to the fact banner in the films doesn't hate his hulk persona or wish to relenquish it from his persona, nor does he have reason to. choking in human mode i feel isn't a strong enough reason to wish to get rid of his other self. Nor was the extent of any of the damage banner caused really examined by bruce so how would he know the depths of what the hulk's destruction, he simply doesn't have the motivation during the time span of the film.

If left to wander and come to terms with what the hulk has done, then yes but he's never left to get on with that so how he go through those emotions?

He had reason to fear the Hulk. Look at what happened at the first transformation. He wrecked the lab. ?

banner never knew the extent of the damage he caused, nor did he ever find out about the car, one can't be held responsible for actions they don't know have been commited.

The father-son dynamic for one.

i don't even know where this goes back to referring about.

I went in to see a good film, and you're right, that wasn't what I got.

you're going to make me cry....

But as Cracker Jack reminded me- Bruce does say in the film that he intended to isolate and destroy the Hulk. How did you miss that?

wasn't that before his first transformation while talking to his father on the phone? i'm not sure, i'll get back to you on that one. I thought that scene was before he had realised that there was even a HUlk to begin with.

But about the self-loathing- .

again the mental journeys the hulk takes aren't examined in the first film, they aren't even really addressed which i feel is fine because these can be examined more thoroughly in a sequel. Given the situations he was in during the first film, time for self examination i feel would have been on a back burner in preference to getting through the ordeal he had found himself in.

it's that simple thought of if you keep yourself busy enough with other external things, it takes the time from dealing with internal traumas.

i mean even in spidey 2, ben only gets the chance to face up to aunt may about his uncle's death when he no longer has the responsibilities of being spidey.

all this time and it's all off topic, dammit...

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

right dragon, if you want any real kinda proper chat on this i suggest we do it on AOL because the lengths of these posts are getting incrediblly large.

my msn messenger address is in my signature, it's the only IM i have access to.

 

[Cracker Jack]

wasn't that before his first transformation while talking to his father on the phone? i'm not sure, i'll get back to you on that one. I thought that scene was before he had realised that there was even a HUlk to begin with.

It was before the second Hulkout. He was talking to his dad. His dad wanted to harness it power but Bruce says he will isolate it and destroy it. His dad says I bet you and your Betty would love to destroy it, but could your really destroy part of yourself.

Just helpin out

 

[Axl Rose]

I vote this suit

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

Watch the film again (I'm apologize for suggesting that). Bruce only begins transforming when David goes haywire and starts absorbing the electricity and then Ross tries to fry him. Then David grabs him and blasts them out of the facility. David then attacks him in order to absorb the Hulk's power. He's fighting out of self-defense.

that's my point, he turned into the hulk BEFORE his father did anything to him, so to suggest that bruce didn't turn into the hulk for self defensive reasons which is what you implied earlier, what happens after his initial transformation has no bearing on why the transformation occured itself.

So yep, one could say Bruce just wanted a piece of his father by the end of the film.

You're confusing coherent thought with instinct. Animals who can't reason can still find their way home or attack an object they know is a threat.

the coherency goes to the hulk being 'mindless' and i'm trying to show he's not.

nor do i feel the hulk's reactions were purely instinct in the film since as shown some of his actions did actually require relatively high levels of interlect.

and i'd like to see any animal who is 'moved' away from their home find their way back without any sensory bearings of where they have been taken.

That was in the script. The tank driver and the helicopter pilots would have died if there was any hint of reality. And I'm not saying the Hulk was totally mindless. I'm just making the point that He certainly doesn't do everything based on GUIDANCE from Bruce Banner. He functions on a combination of instinct and a very mininal amount of control from Bruce's subconscious.

not everything, i've said before the last primary actions wished from bruce are generally fulfilled when the hulk emerges. Mindless in any shape or form i feel is an inacurate description of the creature seen on screen. At no point do i think his anger takes him to the mindless point.

Anyway, the Hulk not being able to speak tells you he wasn't really in control.

Well there isn't evidence to show he could or couldn't speak, rather he chose not to, especially considering he was able to communicate with the other part of his psyche.

but again, i don't know what point this is making

Dude, you need to read the comics. The transformation is to a point controlled. At least back to Banner. He either transforms because the danger is past, or a chemical agent causes the transformation (His gamma machine, certain gases, etc.). He can be unconscious and remain the Hulk. And whenever there's danger he'll immediately transform.

You're assigning comic logic to a creature on the screen which isn't anything like the one in the comics. Hulk's falling and is out cold, that signifies enough trigger a transformation for me and when danger is notified he transforms back.

Personally while transforming, i've thought that there have been people that have knocked out the hulk/banner and it's led him to reverting back into human state while out cold. Would you consider the half transformed being to stay like that until it regains consciousness then? just a question rather than anything else

We're see-sawing on this. There is a level of subconscious control and instinctive reaction on the Hulk's part. My point is that you're over-emphasizing the balance in the wrong areas. He doesn't go to save Betty because "Bruce controls him". He goes because Bruce knew she was in danger, and this sticks in the Hulk's mind after the transfromation. If Bruce were really in control, then he'd have transformed into the Hulk immediately after his father tells him that he's going to kill Betty, and not have waited until Talbot was beating him up.

i think we are on a similar page on this, it's just your interpretation of what i'm saying i think is stronger than intended. What i'm trying to get to is that the hulk has only been shown in his first transformation going off to fulfill his own demises and in no cases has he been 'mindless', he may have been deterred and reacted to them but he's still kept on track. That's the kinda of control i speak of.

If i were to transform into you, you'd probably get up and start doing something entirely different to what i'm doing because i have no bearing over your actions, while it's different for the hulk and bruce and that's what i'm trying to get accross that there is some sort of communication happening between these two beings or messages swapping from psyches and timed with fulfilling a certain criteria then calming down lead to hulk turning back into bruce. There is enough evidence to show a correlation.

If they had shown the transformation start, then you'd have a point. But they don't. The scene is just another misfire. It was just a way to wake the Hulk up so he wouldn't drown by not holding his breath.

This is just as valid as mentioned earlier as your hulk protecting the civilians on the bridge.

Both scenes aren't shown but are implied. To take one and reject the other would be hypocritical yet you're reading into your scene and not into this one.

Fantasy-Adventure films are generally geared to a younger audience. If there was extensive nudity, sexual situations and less emphasis on action, cursing, and certain types of graphic violence, then it would be considered an adult film. And those films all had toy lines and video games.

yeah they are but in this case i felt with the story that ang had to deal with, such a pitch woudl be detrimental to the film.

daredevil is not really far from the hulk with it's content, yet it allowed itself to be more gritty and set itself apart from being another marvel family film. The blade films again furthered this concept.

blade didn't have a toyline or a video game, nor did daredevil. hulk got clumped into the spidey/x-men/ff marketing family children oriented film media frenzy, you know same films that are endorsed by burger king and mcdonalds, those kinda films.

as a hulk fan, you should know that the story of turning into a monster and dealing with it should be a much darker tale rather than sold as fun for all, which i felt is what was attempted for the hulk. putting a wolf in sheep;s clothing and all.

I think you mean stigma- "stigmata" is what leaked from Jesus' wounds during the crucificxion.

Anyway, why shouldn't children be able to enjoy comic films? Stan Lee and his crew were smart enough to genreate characters that appealed to a wide range of ages. The movies should also reflect this.

yeah, i meant stigma (doesn't it derive from stigmata though), apologies

not all stories are meant for children though or can be truelly appreciated by a young developing mind. Perhaps i'm underestimating the younger viewer but i'm talking about the 5-6 year olds here, how can they relate to turning into the hulk, they have yet to truelly master the effects such a situation would really have on someone's life.

all this is not a fault of society but trying to maintain the innocence of childhood for our youngsters for far too long, longer than necessary by sugar coating life and not showing them the reality of what is to become if a certain series of choices are taken. but again, not a fault of the film on its own/

Would I love the power? yes. But not losing FULL control of my life. Not living like a fugitive.

well banner never lives like a fugitive as such, he's free in south america (which i think is where he is by the end of the film).

again the depths of his personality and dealing with his condition have yet to surface on the film, only the initial honeymoon period. he's still peter parker pre uncle ben death stage (closest analogy i can find). or something along those lines, his actions have yet to lead to the endangerment of close loved ones sufficiently to question his alter ego's existence.

And as far as comparing the Hulk and Kong films- yes you can. In fact, I firmly believe that Ang Lee was going for the Kong concept in his approach, which is why he made Bruce such a weak non-aggressive character. The point is, he failed, because that's not what the Hulk is supposed to be.

I feel the creatures of hulk and kong on paper are very similar but the characters we see on the screen aren't although i can understand why you could see them as being similar. Personally the relative screen time devoted to each and their roles in that time means i don't feel the same way.

Marketing only matters up until release. And the point is- that it succeeded. Everyone knew the Hulk was in theaters and the opening weekend reflects that. So, IF it was such a good movie, then the audience of folks such as yourself who loved it would have been able to find it and support it.

The point i've been trying to make is that it suceeded by selling a film that wasn't the one people went into watch. If spidey advertised Wall to wall webslinging in all his adverts and only showed him do One swing, you'd feel somewhat cheated even if the rest of the film was fine. And that's with an open film. The hulk's not even to everyone's taste so how is that going to make people feel.

How is it that this wonderful film you guys are defending got poor word of mouth from EVERYONE? simply because it .. what? didn't have enough action? Didn't show the Hulk enough?? Cause.. The Hulk has as much screentime as Spider-Man, and both films have equal amounts of action. So if those folks love Spidey, they'd love the Hulk as well.

now i've never thought the hulk would be a film that everyone would take a love, so i was never expecting world wide love from it. Especially with the release of some initial screen caps that were slighltly dodgy (*cough*media'sfault*cough*) which i fear may have attributed to unsettling people about cgi hulk originally right from the get go.


actionwise, plenty of people on the hype wished for more action, i feel what was shown was sufficient. definitely though as a on-looker i would have expected more action/rage based carnage.

as for showing the hulk enough, perhaps the anticipation to seeing the character in question may have taken a while. the weight may have been too long and not worth it for some. one can imagine waiting a while to see the hulk only to have him on screen for only a few minutes. then have another wait...

the beginning of spidey was geared towards the life of spidey and the motivations of spidey, the hulk for all intenses and purposes is driven by what needs doign at that time. Fine bruce's build up was a little static but i suppose it was trying to show him as static and fairly unemotional. it's hard to feel for someone who doesn't feel for anything else around him.

plus spidey wasn't littered with complex storylines and motivations. Far more direct showing befores and after, cause and effect, heroism yadda yadday. Fine it got to it's point simpler and better for a movie go-er.

The Hulk had what the audience was expecting. It featured a superhuman character that did heroic things and it had plenty of action. Face it, what was there just wasn't any good. The story was incoherent and jumbled. The main character was boring and the villain was cheezy.

i feel other villains have come across more cheesy in films that have been received better, bar magneto, all other marvel villains have suffered from a piece of cheese some even more than david banner.

alright you feel it wasn't any good, i quite enjoyed it. fine

the thing is going back to the thread topic, having a incoherent and jumbled story with a boring main character a cheese villain and a real person as the hulk you feel would have positively effected it's box office takings enough for it to be seriously considered as an option, even though potential budgeting would have increased severely for the film and they may also have set the film back for extensive filming?

Back when the film was released I went extensively through the film expressing what I felt were its flaws. It's been a long time so I don't remember everything. But bascially the story went nowhere. I'll say again that I'm not a fan of mindless, pointless action. I wanted to see a powerful drama and psychological plot line. Yes, I wanted HUGE action where appropriate. In fact I think there was enough action scenes. The problem is that they, like the story were poorly realized. The Hulk dog fight wasn't big enough (Also, the Hulk dogs were a poor choice to begin with). 4 creatures with that much power locked in savage battle would have deximated the forest. The Tank and Chopper fights were slow and also not very spectacular. And the fight with David was nonsense. Again, poor chocie of villain, weak choreography.

i'll let these slide because it comes down to preference.

Only to a point. With the script they had, it wouldn't have helped very much. other than making the Hulk more relatable, and allowing for bigger action because they would have had to use less animation.

money wise how much financially would a studio have from getting a actor to STAR as the hulk (about 10 million on it's own minimum), build sets, costume designers, special effects people, stuntmen, film crew, director's fees, rather than getting a CGI team to take care of it. I'm only asking because i don't think it would be financially feasible.

Bruce wore prosthetic feet to keep him from injuring his own feet.

aw c'mon, it's not used to enhance a physical feature, only to protect, the use of prosthetics in die hard are different than trying to envision a creature not native to this planet normally.

To a point he does look like a hobbit. He has disproportionately large feet and hands. Granted, I wouldn't care if the actor had them or not, but this is the excuse so many folks use for why the Hulk had to be CGI.

interesting, not sure of your hobbit description though.

The CGI Hulk didn't have very great muscle mass. That's part of my point.
Secondly, you vary it per shot. At times you'd have to green screen the actor and increase his size digitally. At other times you use other teicks such as camera placements, making proportional props and so forth.

The reason many people are saying it would be better to go with a real human is purely because the CGI hulk was too big, now you say that they should keep the character at the same scale. The hulk would still be bigger than the 7 foot odd height you've reccommended for him in another thread.

as for the muscle mass, i felt it was sufficient, he just wasn't defined because the majority of the strongest people on this planet aren't defined, only a small small proportion of people who enter into strongman competitions are infact definted. So relative to them i felt his muscle proportions were decent.

Well first I'll list Superman. Lifting a helicopter. Lifting gigantic boulders. Re-directing a missile. In the new film he saves a plane. As for Lou, true, they didn't show him doing those things. But that's because the show didn't have the budget or inclination top make the Hulk that powerful. Remember bullets hurt him. But- if they wanted to show it, they could have. Just as they can show the CG Hulk lift a CG tank, they can show an actor do it.

reporter choppers are on the same scale as cars generally, not completely out of the way, certainly smaller than desert tanks.

How big was the boulder, i don't know what film you're talking about there

as for the missle, which film is it from, is it superman 3.

i said before i've yet to see the plane in action although more than likely that will come under scrutiny, so since we havent' seen it, we shouldn't use it as postive or negative evidence.

now the problem with a human throwing a tank is that a bodybuilder isn't a 'hammer thrower' (technique used by the hulk to throw the vehicle) and they aren't any professional hammer throwers that look like bodybuilders. so if trying to recreate the same scene you end up with a poorer looking scene purely based on the fact of replicating world class techniques by an amateur. the scene would have to be done in a different manner, i don't feel it could be replicated by humans (although a different method could indeed be better).

Just like there were inaccuracies with the CG Hulk tossing the tank.

not to do with scale though

You're trading one hassle for another. Animating the Hulk takes just as much time. And you can't say it would look silly with an actor. You're saying, what, that showing an actor punch or throw things would HAVE TO look bad? Just because YOU can't imagine how to shoot the scene doesn't mean it can't be done.

This is what it comes down to, trading hassles. Isn't the devil you know better than the one you don't, especially with time and money on the mind?

The same way Lou created excitment on the series. People loved Bill Bixby and Lou for different reasons. And merely the sexiness factor creates an additional dimension. For example women fantasized about Lou because of the power and savagery of his character. Same would apply here.

sexiness? big men haven't been seen as sexy since the 80s, that whole massive muscle idealism has died way way down...#

crazy women. However as strange as this point is i'll let you have it, i however don't think it would draw in as much revenue based on sex appeal as you believe.

Well again, Absorbing Dad was a poor choice of villain. But- The hero can FIGHT CGI monsters- just as in LOTR the heroes fought the CG Ogres and other creatures.

i thought ogres were men in costumes in general.

i haven't really watched LOTR and i'm personally not a fan of real battling cgi becoem most of the time it looks awkward but that again is personal preference, i feel an actor in battle should feed off something otherwise keep it all in cgi.

Marketing did correctly portray the film. Only you guys making excuses for it thinks they didn't. Bottom line, I and every one I know that didn't like the movie didn't walk out saying "That wasn't the movie the trailers and commercials suggested" We all said- That movie sucked. Period. Just as we thought films like Godzilla '98 sucked. Not the ads- THE MOVIE.

I'm not going round this circle again. Whatever, you win...

Yes.

Actually that's EXACTLY what it was. He makes his money doing CG animation. So if he said the man-in-suit route was the way to go, meaning he'd LOSE money, that means something. He's saying artistically, CG was too limited to generate a believable, relatable Hulk. And he's right. You can't compare characters like Gollum of Kong, because Kong is an ape, not a man- which the Hulk is expected to be. And Gollum is creepy, which the Hulk is NOT expected to be.

You see that's where we differ, if he had said CGI wasn't the right way to go and stuck by his guns by not going ahead with the contract than fair enough, but to come in at the end and then comment on how he feels about CGI being an option then it just lowers his opinion from being a professional one.

if he felt that strongly about the hulk, he shouldn't have taken the job rather than make comments afterwards. Professionally, i wouldn't commit myself to doing a task i felt someone could do better.

the hulk is a primal CGI monster, why aren't comparisons to Kong feasible, or gollum, especially kong?

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

It was before the second Hulkout. He was talking to his dad. His dad wanted to harness it power but Bruce says he will isolate it and destroy it. His dad says I bet you and your Betty would love to destroy it, but could your really destroy part of yourself.

Just helpin out

right, gotcha. danke...

 

[Odin's Lapdog]

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.

limited comics, my own perception of what the character should be like and also the 90s cartoon which first series i thought put across a good portrayal of what would be expected of such a character.

the region of comics i have are around the death of betty ross by abomination and also a bit before when the hulk and banner seperated after onslaught.

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.

I think the whole control part of my explanations have been perhaps taking too literally. I see banner as parental role while hulk being the child of them two and while they may not see eye to eye hulk somewhere seems to respect the underlying wishes of bruce to a certain extent, but perhaps your views are better.

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.

so you're saying the hulk;s actions were more selfish than trying to save the both of them, or even banner in particular?

well that's fine, i can accept that.

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.

even the mightiest of comic characters are bound by reality (although some less than others).

no one is completely able to do anything, especially on film.

as for some of spidey's and supes' acts, that's moaning for another thread although both have had relatively smaller scaled feats to carry out. but again, that's just me.

 

[Dragon]

I'm sorry, but IMO CGI is the ONLY way to go, a bodybuilder would look rediculous, you want reasons for CGI, here:

1) The Hulk is something unique and monstrous, he needs to look that way on film. A body builder would not capture that.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're not a professional, you don't know the limits of the technology. You're also not a director, and thus your lack of vision doesn't suggest what is and isn't possible.

2) The foundation is already layed down in the first movie, we need some continuity in the sequel.

Since that movie failed- obviously no one cares about what was established in the first film. Spidey 1 was a huge success, and even then the studio was ready to replace the STAR of the movie when things became problematic. They won't care about redesigning the Hulk.

3) In order for the action to be better in the sequel, bigger feats than throwing tanks, etc are needed, again a bodybuilder could not lift a frigging tank.

Really? And you think the CGI Hulk was lifting a tank?

4) Hellboy looked great, as did Abe Sapien, but Thing, Beast and Juggernaut all look less than average IMO. And they were all human-ish proportions, but when the proportions go bigger than this, we get Hyde out of LXG, who i thought looked bad, or we get CGI, in both Hellboy and LOTR, when the proportions got bigger than even the biggest human, PJ went with CGI.

You contradict yourself in this statement, and mkae it clear that it's not a question of prosthetics- but the DESIGN of the prosthetics. So- if the design team makes good looking prosthetics (Made simpler because it's only limbs) then we'll be okay.

5) Kong, the cgi now is much better than in 2003, so imagine it in 2008.

Kong is an ape. Apes are simpler creatures than humans. The Hulk is not an ape. Kong is covered with fur. Fur is easier to make appear real than human skin.