I responded backwards- so your last post is being responded to first.
Odin's Lapdog said:
Just because David isn't attacking him at that second- doesn't mean that Bruce didn't know FOR SURE that David intended to kill him- their dialogue makes that clear. And David was certainly creating a dangerous situation that would theoretically lead to Bruce's death (It didn't only because the electricity couldn't kill him anyway)- So Bruce was absolutely transforming because of David's attack. And - YOU'RE the one that implied that Bruce didn't change for self-defense reasons, not me. You said in an earlier post that the Hulk fighting his father was him carrying out Bruce's objective. I said he merely defends himself against his father's attack- Not fulfills any wish of Bruce's.
If his father had simply left him there and the Hulk followed then your point would be made. But that's not what happens. David snatches Bruce away with him.
He has flashes of coherency and reasoning. But he clearly can't reason, because if he could, his first response wouldn't be to fight his attackers. And- again- he'd be able to speak.
and i'd like to see any animal...
Actually there's a very famous story about a dog whose family moves cross country. He gets separated from them, and manages to travel across country to find them. They made a goofy Disney movie about it.
If it were merely about fulfilling Bruce's wishes he could have done things in a non-violent way. For example, he didn't have to kill the dogs to protect Betty. He could've taken her away. Same deal with the army. He could've just left. He didn't have to fight them. He fought them on instinct, not a plan of Bruce's. And- just so we're clear that it wasn't Bruce's wishes- again- in each situation he could have made the transformation occur on his own. He didn't have to be held under house arrest- He didn't have to be placed in the fluid tube(He even endures Talbot's beating him). He didn't have to be strapped to the dynamo. He allowed this because his reaction isn't inherently aggressive.
Well there isn't evidence...
He would've spoke if he could. He would've uttered something when the choppers were facing him. He would've said something to Betty.
but again, i don't know..
Because, if Bruce were in control of the Hulk, he'd be able to communicate. Bruce is a man of intellect. His first response is to reason.
You're assigning comic logic...
I know. The comic logic is superior. Another knock against the movie.
Hulk's falling and is out cold
It doesn't. There are ground rules with the character.
Just like he can leap for miles, just like he can toss 50 ton tanks, he doesn't transform naturally back to Banner while still in danger- EVEN IF UNCONSCIOUS. There are tons of comic stories that display and explain this. He makes the change because he knows the Hulk is no longer needed. When he feels secure. Not just because he's unconscious. If that were the case, he'd have been killed off many years ago.
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
Well, like anything else over a 44 year run there are glitches and mistakes. But the standard shows that as long as he's still in danger, Banner maintains the Hulk persona. I can think of numerous times off the top of my head when he was gassed unconscious(Hulk #171-172), blasted unconscious (Hulk 168-169), And even voluntarily laid down to sleep (Hulk #180) all without changing. And if I went through my collection I could find many more.
And this is also a hint about Banner's control. It isn't direct- its subtle.
This is just as valid as mentioned earlier as your hulk protecting the civilians on the bridge.
Okay.. I responded to these posts backwards- so I'll address this point now.
I guess you forgot two key scenes from the Goldengate scene-
1. The raptors nearly hit a civilian chopper- suggesting that the military simply sent them in without first clearing the area of civilians- thus showing the recklessness I mentioned.
2. In the shot when the jet is about to hit the bridge, you can clearly see a number of civilian cars directly in his path.
So yes, the point I'm making IS shown. But- it isn't shown effectively- because... It's not a well made film.
daredevil is not really...
Even though they might be dark and gritty, the ideology and tone were simplistic and the action somewhat juvenile, so they really were directed toward children. Same with the Hulk. Hollywood has developed a type of approach to blockbusters that's "half & Half" partially geared toward adults, partially geared to children. Or maybe they appeal to the child-like nature in adults. Also, in our society these days, adults are more able to express child-like tendencies than say, 40 + years ago. Films like Blade Runner or 2001 are examples of fantasy films that were really adult oriented. But the Marvel films- ALL OF THEM havbe been geared toward kids and teens. And it's understandable to a point. These movies cost lots of monoey and they need the family audience to make their money back. And again Marvel comics has always been about reaching the various age groups, not just one.
There is a way that the Hulk could have been a completely adult film (Spidey, X-men too for that matter). But they'd have to be darker with less emphasis on heroism and more on the pshchological and societal ramifications. More subtle, less about saving the world and so forth. Less about a villain popping up just in time for the hero to ssave the day. For example, the Hulk would have been totaly about Bruce's journey of finding himself. any battles with villains and so forth would either be symbolic, or incidental.
blade didn't have a toyline or a video game, nor did daredevil.
Blade and DD did have toylines- I've seen them. Do an internet search, you'll find them. They might not have been marketed as largely as some other toylines, but then, they were lower-budgeted films.
It's not a point of it being dark. The Crow was dark and it's one of my favorite films. It's simply that the Hulk didn't have a strong script. Too many plot points that go nowhere. Too many clunky scenes. Too much emphasis on the wrong things. Ang Lee neither did a strong psychological drama, nor a summer blockbuster. And rightfully, based on the source material, the Hulk should have had a strong mix of both.
yeah, i meant stigma (doesn't it derive from stigmata though)
No it doesn't, but that's neither here nor there. I'm certainly no English major.
not all stories are meant...
The Hulk was my favorite character when I was little. I started following him regulary at the age of 8. If anything, the concept of the Hulk is perfect for a child, since he fulfills the fantasy of defiance of oppressors (parents, teachers, older siblings, bullies) by pure, childlike, brute force. Whenever someone bugged me, I wished I could transform into the Hulk and squash them.
all this is not a fault..
It's a fault of the film because that's further evidence that Ang Lee didn't get what the Hulk was about, and that he's not right for creating a summer blockbuster. It would honestly be a walk in the park to make a Hulk film that's both intelligent, dramatic, and fun. It's easy with ANY Marvel film with so much source material. With each of these franchises I could personally in minutes come up with a concept for a great film. Not because I'm a genius, but just because all the groundwork has been laid down . That's why the FF and DD films as well infuriate me. It's just not that hard to come up with good material with 40 YEARS of work to base it on.
Of course he's a fugitive. Ross is clearly still after him at the end. And he's not where he wants to be- with Betty working on his scientific theories.
Again, that's just the problem. The film should have focused on those things from the beginning; Not his dad's nuttiness and not shots of desert flora. Ang Lee didn't have to use that script. In fact, he and his partner James Schamus wrote the script. But anway, your analogy is off just because- Bruce's psychological issues are exactly why he becomes the Hulk, as opposed to say something similar to Doc Samson. His inner rage- his unresolved issues from childhood created the Hulk persona.
I DON'T see them as similar. I'm saying that Ang Lee does and he mistakenly structured the Hulk movie to be like Kong. Kong represents the purity and power of nature that Man chooses wrongly to attempt to control. Yeh, there's the beauty & beast theme, but that's only surface stuff.
The Hulk originally was meant to reflect Jekyll and Hyde and frankenstein. Ma'n's relentless pursuit to better himself turned back on him. Or more directly, he's the military's lust for power to back on them. That's why it was such a big mistake to remove the Gamma bomb. The Hulk is a bomb on two legs, essentially there to punish the military.
The psychological issues that were later developed are perfectly in-line with all of this. But Ang Lee missed all of the best material- all of the meat of the Hulk character. That's why I found the film disappointing. Not because it wasn't mindless action- not because I didn't "get" what Lee was trying to do and certainly not because the movie wasn't what the ads presented.
The point i've been trying
Spider-Man was advertised to have as much action as the Hulk trailers. and it HAD as much action as the Hulk. I don't think Spider-Man was a great film. I don't think ANY Marvel film has been great. But at least the two Spidey flicks and X flicks have managed to be fun, entertaining and with stories that fall reasonably into place. The Hulk was a mish-mash. Daredevil was over-the-top, unconvincing and clumsy.
now i've never thought the hulk
The Hulk is a beloved character. One of Marvel's most recognizable. He has a great blend of drama, humor and spectacular action that could easily translate perfectly to the screen. And had he been written as more than a big pet, then the audience would have connected with him.
For me it a balancing thing. I don't think there needed to be more action scenes- just that they needed to be bigger and faster moving. And we needed better villains than Hulk Dogs and Absorbing Dad.
Again, they showed about as much Hulk as was needed. It wasn't the number of appearances, but the quality of them, that was lacking.
Plain and simple: Tell what the Hulk is about. Again, there's enough material so that Ang Lee didn't have to deviate from it as much as he did. The Hulk is about Bruce Banner and his psychological issues. not experiments his father made and the interests and disinterests of the military. Those are subplots. The story has to begin and end with Bruce Banner.
plus spidey wasn't littered with complex storylines and motivations.
Neither was the Hulk. The storylines weren't complex, but very simplistic. And not thorough. His father put himself at risk for his work. Same as Norman Osborn. Bruce was emotionless. Okay. But that's not enough. You have to show that underneath, he's longing to express his feelings for Betty. that way the audience can connect with him.
i feel other villains have come across more cheesy
Cheesy in other ways maybe, but not more cheesy. Nolte's over-acting and silliness made the character a joke.
the thing is going back to the thread topic
Yes & no. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to see the movie as is even if there was an actor playing the Hulk. But- It might have made more money just because people would have wanted to see the actor. Lots of people go to see Spider-Man just for Tobey Maguire- not because they really care about Spider-Man.
money wise how much financially
10 million? Only if the actor were already a big star. Tobey got more in the range of 3 million for the first Spidey, and he was already fairly well known.
But money is saved by not having animators spending hours makking the Hulk point and scratch his butt. Spending HUNDREDS of hours rendering animation.
You'd still be using digital models of tanks and planes, but not having to animate the Hulk on top of that. And aesthetically, that the Hulk doesn't look like CGI.
The point is, that no one said "His feet look fake!" And his being barefoot was integral to the story. They're not going to be doing any long shots focusing on the Hulk's feet either. So he'd look convincing.
interesting, not sure of your hobbit description though.
Well, in the shot of him standing facing Betty in San Fran, he looked like a big elf to me with the big hands and feet.
The reason many people are saying
I never said keep him the same scale. In the movie he ranged from 9-15 feet, which is too big right out of the gate. Making the Hulk appear between 7-8 ft. is quite enough.
as for the muscle mass, i felt it was sufficient
First of all, you must know that their reason for not defining the Hulk wasn't due to the look of strong men. Olympic weight lifters and such don't look like the Hulk did. They tend to be bulkier with far less defined muscles. Many have large guts and so forth. This doesn't mean they aren't fit, they're just not defined like Body Builders because tey use their muscles differently.
The reason they didn't define that Hulk as much as some comic aritists is becuse for one thing, alot of the muscles that Keown and other artists gave him don't even exist. And the Hulk would've looked ridiculous if they actually tried to make all that muscle move- not to mention how much MORE time it would take to animate that type of musculature.
Reporter choppers are longer than cars. The boulders were in Superman 1 when he was stopping the flood. They were far larger than he was. As for the missiles, I was referring to Supes 1. But it doesn't matter. This is all nitpicking to the umpteenth degree. The point is they can make it appear that a normal sized man is lifting a tank. The trick is in making the object appear weighty in areas not supporting by the character and having the character make an effort to achieve proper leverage, based on their strength and size level. For example- we know the Hulk can lift a large sized car with one hand, and it wouldn't be any strain for him. Nearly the way we could lift a football. So the point is in presenting all the proper mechanics. How, when the hulk grabs the car, the car will sink on its shock as he puts the pressure down. How much of the body would crumple as his hands dug in to grip it. How if he lifts from the front the rear of the car would dip a bit as he balanced it.
That's an unbelievable nitpick. First, I personally wouldn't have done that scene. It looked like something from a Popeye cartoon. But, if you think any athlete couldn't mimmick the movements of a hammer throw after some rehearsal you need to try it. Afterall, he isn't trying to win an olympic gold medal. You're comparison is like saying that because Uma Thurman doesn't really know how to use a samurai sword, she couldn't appear to cut someone's head off in Kill Bill. Yeah, for me as a martial artist, I can see that she sucks at martial arts. But the film can still be entertaining to general audiences.
not to do with scale though
Actually, the inaccuracy was worse- attempting to have the hulk lift the entire tank by the cannon. It would have broken apart before he could toss it. And as far as scale- no it wasn't accurate- because a fifteen foot object couldn't balance a 100 ton tank that way. But it's also fantasy, and can be forgiven on either level.
This is what it comes down to
And CG is the devil they know? They said constantly how they were breaking new ground and doing revolutionary and experimental things on the Hulk. The Actor would've been the devil-you-know.
Dude, anybody thrust into the limelight is sexy. There's nothing special about many of the actors and actresses that are seen as "hot". I mean, Maxim just made freakin' Eva Longoria their number one hot chick. Don't get me wrong. Eva is very good looking but there are definitely hotter women out there. But she's on a popular tv show and has a sexy image. Same here. I'm not saying whoever they cast as the Hulk would be considered sexy just because of his build- i'm saying he'd be considered sexy
because he's the Hulk. Women would be fantasizing about him busting out of his clothes and busting them out of theirs. Again, not possible with a CG character.
The words crazy and woman are synonymous.
i thought ogres were men in costumes in general.
You're thinking of Orks. The Ogre was the giant creature they fought in the cave/cathedral where all the Dwarves were killed. He had a whip and chain, and appeared to kill Frodo. And Legolas killed him by shooting him in the throat with an arrow. There were more of the in Two Towers and I think ROTK.
You see that's where we differ..
He would have been wrong to say it when the Hulk was in production- because him saying that would mean his losing his job, and possibly his crew losing theirs. Anyway- they weren't asking him for his opinion then. they simply presented him with a task and he fulfilled it to the best of his ability. And obviously folks like yourself think he did a good job.
He made the statement when asked about his involvement in the sequel, which was his being honest.
the hulk is a primal CGI monster, why aren't comparisons to Kong feasible, or gollum, especially kong?
Kong is an ape, not a human. Gollum is a supproting character. The Hulk is a primal HUMAN. And the main character. Gollum and even Kong were there to generate reactions from the main characters. The Hulk is meant to carry the film. But Lee made the Hulk like Kong and Gollum. A supproting character, another huge mistake in a long string of them.
although both have had relatively smaller scaled feats to carry out. but again, that's just me.
...thanks
