Script Rundown- Bigtime Spoilers

[FrostBite]

Interesting points. It continues to intrigue me how our opinions of these movies are shaped by our experiences and namely how the comics influence those experiences. As you said, whenever you read a comic, Spidey made you laugh and so now, naturally, you look for him (Tobey) to make you laugh in the movies. Well, I'm coming from the background of having almost no prior experience with these characters outside of three main cartoons - Spiderman & His Amazing Friends, The Incredible Hulk and He-Man - and the Hulk TV show. I never had access to the comics and, in general I suppose, I'm not interested in them. I just like the characters and the Hulk's story appeals to me the most.

Oh definately. It's one of the main reasons I have been writing a script (that of course will probably never be accepted lol, just to try my hand at the whole thing in my spare time.) with an unconvential hero, no comics, no tv shows, nothing for people to reference. On the plus side, it's the pure form, and nothing to condence to fit to a movie screen. On the bad side... no brand name recognition and no one willing to take a chance with it.

 

[hame4479]

Serum!? Super Soldier??? Serum!!!??? It's the Incredible Captain Hulk America.

BAH!!

Complete crap. Why can't they get this Sh!^ right? !
So now instead of Banners Dad experimenting on himself it’s Banner experimenting on himself. I hope this is a crock. If not I'm completely done. I have no hope for this movie or franchise.

This is either a lie by ross to blansky or a general reference to what bruce was working on. I really don't think that they are saying bruce injected himself and that is what caused the hulk. Honestly I think this is a good thing. Super Soldier Syrum means cap and it means tie in. I think when all is said and done all of these films are going to weave right togethor if all goes well. Hopefully cap will be set in ww2, bruce was part of a project to recreate said formula, and the avengers will very closely adhere to some elements of the ultimate avengers animated film. Sounds interesting to me.

 

[Gianakin_]

Just a comment based on something AVEIT said earlier: Since when was Superman Returns faithful to the comics (I love it, mind you) and since when if it turns out that TIH follows the Ultimate Universe from the comics is not as faithful to the source material? Aren't the Ultimate ones comics as well?

 

[emi]

Speaking of dialogue, does anyone have any idea what the IESB reviewer means when he says, "I’m also happy to report that purple stretchy pants have a non-speaking cameo in this film"?

It's a gift that Betty gave to Banner. From the screenplay, page 72/73:

Betty

Target: They've got everything. Okay, it ain't Armani but...

He puts it on as she starts showing him clothes. She holds up a large pair of STRETCHY PURPLE PANTS

Bruce

I'm an irradiated freak, that doesn't mean I've lost my sense of style.


'nuff said!

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well, that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Not just ordinary movies that may have done well, but movies that truly excelled and pleased everyone. Can you honestly say the rest of those movies pleased everyone? Personally, I would put Hulk on the level of all of those movies, with the exception of Spider-Man, but my hope is TIH will be a Spidey 2, Batman Begins or X2.

Superman Returns... I just don't see what people like you saw in that movie. Same old villain, same old weakness, same old everything... the story's been told like, what, a million times? I just don't get it. Loved the scene where he saves the plane, though... that was kind of neat. Oh, and I liked Brandon Routh. The rest was utterly boring IMO and the impregnated Lane... well, I didn't like that idea.

But its maybe a bit too much to hope for the movie be as good as those 3, a movie at the level of Spiderman, Blade or X-Men would de me just fine, then they can improve upon with a sequel.

Every CB movie has the potential to be as good as those 3 of course, but it is rarley achieved is it.

As for SR, i think it is one of the best superhero movies ever, i loved it, and have watched it about 50 times without ever getting bored of it. It seems to be a love it or hate movie, people either absolutely love it (it is coming 6th or 7th in the Best CB Movie Ever Thread) or absolutely hate it (some people on the SR board think its worse than B&R!).

I personally put it joint 4th with Hulk in my best CB movies ever.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Just a comment based on something AVEIT said earlier: Since when was Superman Returns faithful to the comics (I love it, mind you) and since when if it turns out that TIH follows the Ultimate Universe from the comics is not as faithful to the source material? Aren't the Ultimate ones comics as well?

The likes of SR and the forthcoming Hellboy 2 save themselves those criticisms IMO by not basing their stories on the comics.

However, I do feel it remained faithful to its characters and world. The Superman i saw in SR was the same one i have seen in the many comics i have read IMO.

As for TIH being based on the Ultimate Hulk origin, i didnt say it was unfaithful, just a bad idea, IMO of course.

 

[Gianakin_]

The likes of SR and the forthcoming Hellboy 2 save themselves those criticisms IMO by not basing their stories on the comics.

Indeed, but isn't it logical for someone to say that for this exact reason they are completely unfaithful (I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as you might have guesed, I don't care about faithfulness, or else I'd hate Batman Returns)?

However, I do feel it remained faithful to its characters and world. The Superman i saw in SR was the same one i have seen in the many comics i have read IMO.

I agree 100%. That's why perhaps TIH might also get the feeling right, just like SR did.

As for TIH being based on the Ultimate Hulk origin, i didnt say it was unfaithful, just a bad idea, IMO of course.

I should've been more clear, that part wasn't a response to your previous comment, I just went on with my thoughts and adressed people who think faithfulness to comics is everything.
However, I think you said yesterday that the movies who stay truer to comics tend to be more successful, right? I mean, look at Batman Forever or Daredevil, the Tom Jane Punisher or even Steel. They were closer to the comics than, say, Batman Returns or even the 1st Hulk, but that didn't do much for them at least critically.

 

[Sava]

i think when people say true to the comics, its the most popular version of the comics they want to see, the 70s/80s version of the hulk with Stans origin. The Ultimate Hulk is a crap version IMO, he eats people, he's a horny f**k who runs around trying to basically f**k Betty.

 

[Sava]

It is closer to the comic compared to the 1st one. They also said it would also share the tone of the TV show with Bruce as a fugitive, and it'd be lighter on the psycho-drama. Judging from the set photo's I'd say that's all true. Also don't forget the 9ft tall sticks with markers on them seen on set to represent The Hulk. I wonder if abmomination is 14ft standing straight up, or is he 14ft in his usual crouched position. That would be scary.

Wow...wait a f**king min.... did you just say that THIS is closer to the comics ?.... did you just say that?....

 

[antonydelfini]

i think when people say true to the comics, its the most popular version of the comics they want to see, the 70s/80s version of the hulk with Stans origin. The Ultimate Hulk is a crap version IMO, he eats people, he's a horny f**k who runs around trying to basically f**k Betty.

But i think it's only the super soldier stuff they took from the ultimate universe. No matter how much i want a gamma bomb and rick jones in it, i'm happy enough with what ive read and im not going to let the altered origin make me hate and diss the movie before its out. Im going to stay positive for this one. And im glad 60% who voted in the poll were very positive too.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Indeed, but isn't it logical for someone to say that for this exact reason they are completely unfaithful (I'm playing the devil's advocate here, as you might have guesed, I don't care about faithfulness, or else I'd hate Batman Returns)?

Yeah i notice you were playing DA

Anyway, in my personal opinion, no ,they cant say its unfaithful, because there is nothing previous to compare it to if it is a new story. It would be like saying every new story in the comics is unfaithful IMO.

I agree 100%. That's why perhaps TIH might also get the feeling right, just like SR did.

Perhaps, but this script review and Zak Penn's involvment done give me much confidence, plus, IMO Louis Leterrier is no Bryan Singer.

I should've been more clear, that part wasn't a response to your previous comment, I just went on with my thoughts and adressed people who think faithfulness to comics is everything.
However, I think you said yesterday that the movies who stay truer to comics tend to be more successful, right? I mean, look at Batman Forever or Daredevil, the Tom Jane Punisher or even Steel. They were closer to the comics than, say, Batman Returns or even the 1st Hulk, but that didn't do much for them at least critically.

Daredevil and The Punisher werent that faithful, in fact both deviated quite a lot from the comics. But as for those 2 and the others, faithfulness is nothing when it isnt a good movie.

For me, faithfulness is a big plus point for CB movies in my eyes, but if they get everything else wrong, it doesnt matter does it?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

i think when people say true to the comics, its the most popular version of the comics they want to see, the 70s/80s version of the hulk with Stans origin. The Ultimate Hulk is a crap version IMO, he eats people, he's a horny f**k who runs around trying to basically f**k Betty.

Agreed 110%

Wow...wait a f**king min.... did you just say that THIS is closer to the comics ?.... did you just say that?....

What more did you expect Sava?

 

[Gianakin_]

For me, faithfulness is a big plus point for CB movies in my eyes, but if they get everything else wrong, it doesnt matter does it?

That sounds about right. It's exactly where I was trying to get at. And all I'm saying is, ok, let's say they don't get the origin like in the comics, 616 or Ultimate, do you really find the synopsis so apalling? Can you try, for conversation's sake, describe the Ang Hulk (or I'd do it if you want to) like the TIH synopsis and make a comparison? I mean, IMO, the irradiated dogs part rings the exact same "cheesiness-near" bell as the accidentally-poisoned-by-Banner's-blood incident.

 

[Sava]

What more did you expect Sava?

lol.. if he thinks sticking to the Ultimates is a good thing, he seriously doesnt seem to know that 90% of hardcore Hulk fans hate that version.

 

[Gianakin_]

i think when people say true to the comics, its the most popular version of the comics they want to see, the 70s/80s version of the hulk with Stans origin. The Ultimate Hulk is a crap version IMO, he eats people, he's a horny f**k who runs around trying to basically f**k Betty.

And that's the whole pointlessness of the argument. That, in the end, it's a matter of opinion and when you say "true to the comics", you can mean from the pure gold stories to the "Doc Ock married Aunt May for her small fortune" stories.
I'm not that good in my Hulk comics history, so I can't bring up an example, but from the Batman mythos, Nolan is heavily relying to the Loeb/ Sale stuff, a bit Miller, a good deal of O'Neal. But many say they don't like that era of Batman, and they prefer the 40s Batman, the hardcore Miller stuff. I'll tell them I don't really like the hardcore Miller stuff, and her egoes the loop again. What I'm saying is, it's a trap when you try to talk about source material (excluding the absolutely apalling stories every comic book hero has been graced with).
Ultimate Hulk is fine by me, and by others, but not by you. That's cool. But your above post says "when people talk about faitfulness they mostly mean..." and that's just not really true, IMO. If it's based enough on the comics, it's true to the source material. If the source material is crappy, in someone's opinion, then that's another story. But it's not fair to assume what people mean, even if it's seemingly a majority.

 

[Sava]

And that's the whole pointlessness of the argument. That, in the end, it's a matter of opinion and when you say "true to the comics", you can mean from the pure gold stories to the "Doc Ock married Aunt May for her small fortune" stories.
I'm not that good in my Hulk comics history, so I can't bring up an example, but from the Batman mythos, Nolan is heavily relying to the Loeb/ Sale stuff, a bit Miller, a good deal of O'Neal. But many say they don't like that era of Batman, and they prefer the 40s Batman, the hardcore Miller stuff. I'll tell them I don't really like the hardcore Miller stuff, and her egoes the loop again. What I'm saying is, it's a trap when you try to talk about source material (excluding the absolutely apalling stories every comic book hero has been graced with).
Ultimate Hulk is fine by me, and by others, but not by you. That's cool. But your above post says "when people talk about faitfulness they mostly mean..." and that's just not really true, IMO. If it's based enough on the comics, it's true to the source material. If the source material is crappy, in someone's opinion, then that's another story. But it's not fair to assume what people mean, even if it's seemingly a majority.

i've never been one for the gamma bomb, save rick, blah blah comicbook origin. But, the majoity of Hulk fans, this i know from being here all this time and talking to some of them outside, in the real world, DO want the 70's Hulk with Stans origin. Stans Hulk didnt talk in third person, he wasnt that strong and he was a prick. I'm sorry but you cant say "we are sticking to the comicbook" when you make a movie, with the origin of the hero from a different universe than the one that started it all. People want to see that one that started it all. Ultimate Hulk is a ... re-imagined, lets tie it all together type Hulk. Where he has to share his origin with everyone else. I dont mind that, most Hulk fans do.

 

[Gianakin_]

I'm sorry but you cant say "we are sticking to the comicbook" when you make a movie, with the origin of the hero from a different universe than the one that started it all.

I disagree with this, but fair enough.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That sounds about right. It's exactly where I was trying to get at. And all I'm saying is, ok, let's say they don't get the origin like in the comics, 616 or Ultimate, do you really find the synopsis so apalling? Can you try, for conversation's sake, describe the Ang Hulk (or I'd do it if you want to) like the TIH synopsis and make a comparison? I mean, IMO, the irradiated dogs part rings the exact same "cheesiness-near" bell as the accidentally-poisoned-by-Banner's-blood incident.

At the moment, i dont have to time to do a big long summary of Ang's movie at the moment, but i will point you to this post of mine were i take someone else's summary which i agree with and add my own thoughts:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=12899322&postcount=537

It is more of an opinion on the movie than a summary though, but it may give you what you require from me.

lol.. if he thinks sticking to the Ultimates is a good thing, he seriously doesnt seem to know that 90% of hardcore Hulk fans hate that version.

I agree, i hope that version never see's the light of day, its terrible, and if AD thinks people will be happy with that version being presented on screen, he is seriously misguided!

 

[Gianakin_]

At the moment, i dont have to time to do a big long summary of Ang's movie at the moment, but i will point you to this post of mine were i take someone else's summary which i agree with and add my own thoughts:

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=12899322&postcount=537

It is more of an opinion on the movie than a summary though, but it may give you what you require from me.

Well, it's more of a character analysis than a script summary. I'll show you what I mean when I have the time, and I'll do it as objectively as I can (which shouldn't be difficult, I have no hostile feelings against Ang's Hulk, even though I didn't like it).

 

[SpaghettiHULK]

However, I think you said yesterday that the movies who stay truer to comics tend to be more successful, right? I mean, look at Batman Forever or Daredevil, the Tom Jane Punisher or even Steel. They were closer to the comics than, say, Batman Returns or even the 1st Hulk, but that didn't do much for them at least critically.

Daredevil has the same f***in' mistake with origin: Matt hasn't his accident in attempt to save an old man from the truck of scories. He was not an unconditional hero by his nature ... and then all goes to hell. Daredevil as an xecutioner, killing criminals, doubts about his morality and all that stuff...

 

[Gianakin_]

But in the movie he didn't have the accident while saving an old man. He ran away when he saw that his father was a goon. And the film defintaely got the feeling right, IMO.

 

[SpaghettiHULK]

I was talkin about the movie. In the Original Comics's origin he has the accident in attempt to save the life of an old man that is going to be smashed by a truck of waste... and he pays his braveness with the blindness... and his new powers. In the movie, all that story goes in the garbage...

 

[Gianakin_]

Oh, I see, I misread you. Well sure, the origin wasn't exactly faithful, but the whole deal with him questioning his morality has appeared often in the comics (the recent ones at least). Also, the atmosphere ws close, the essence of moist characters, plus in the end, he goes into the "not killing" mode. He finds himself. I think it worked as an origin story and did justice to the points the comics made.

 

[SpaghettiHULK]

But the question is that DD has never been a killer like criminals he fights. Him questioning his morality has appeared in the comics without the need of seeing him kills anyone.
Bruce Banner that doesn't became the Hulk in attempt to save someone(or Matt Murdock/Daredevil), is like Peter Parker that don't learn about "responsibility" by the murder of his uncle(that him caused). All these elements are fundamental, like the trigger that unleashes events.

 

[Gianakin_]

I understand what you mean, some events in their lives are catalysts. I agree with that.
But to me Murdock losing his eyesight by saving someone or by seeing that his dad is a criminal makes me think it would do the same impact, making him leaning towards the good side.
Parker the same, always feeling guilty and trying to atone.
Banner, now, is another case. I guess saving Rick and getting the blast is making his story tragic in an "out of the blue" way, but injecting himself makes him tragic in an equally (if not more) interesting way: A man so vain, he tried to go too far and got burned for it. Big time. And now he has a chance to atone for this (with the Abomination incident). I like it, it works. Man paying for his vanity isn't only a reminiscent of Parker, but also of classic tragic stories, plus it's faithful to a particular run of comics. It's the whole deal for me. I can see why it's not for you, though.
Anyway, we went a bit off. My initial point is that it certainly wasn't the DD origin that made people not like the movie mch, but the movie itself. Batman Returns was far from faithful but people liked it because it worked as a film and captured certain aspects of the character (cetainly not all). I mean, look at Batman Forever. In many aspects it was faithful: But to which comics? And was it eventually such great film (not to me)?
So, movies that tend to do well don't do well primarily for their faithfulness, but because they're good, IMO.