So now is this a sequel or what?!

Spider-Bat

BATMAN
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
1,471
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I keep hearing different things, that it will be a restart, and then I hear it's a sequel to the first crappy Ang movie and that we're stuck with that origin, or are they just leaving the origin alone since we all know it.

Here's how it should be done, totally restart it, erase the first movie, but instead of going into the origin again, just do a quick recap of it in the beginning of the movie, maybe a voice over from Norton like, I was a scientist working with Gamma rays then something went wrong and I was caught in the heart of a Gamma bomb explosion, it turned me into a Monster. Something like that but better.

Maybe filming it or having Alex Ross do some art telling the tale of Hulk's origin, I loved the Ross recap on spidey and i'd like to see it again, this would be a bit different since it's telling a story we haven't seen yet and not recapping the other movie just starting off fresh, or using Andy Kubert's art. Andy in my opinion is one of the best Hulk artists, along with Deadato Jr., maybe have him do it.

Rick Jones should be in this one too I think.
 
its both a sequal and a revamp.kinf of like heros reborn.
 
It's a reboot that acknowledges the existence of the events that occurred in the previous film.
 
well, they are, get over it.
 
It's a reboot that acknowledges the existence of the events that occurred in the previous film.
So it's like Superman Returns, only I'd call it a "reimagining"... more along the lines of Casino Royale which didn't totally acknowledge the previous events (by making Bond a recent promotee to 00), but didn't explicitly deny them. It alluded to to their presence by including Judi Dench as M, much as this movie might include Sam Elliott as General Ross or something.
 
So it's like Superman Returns, only I'd call it a "reimagining"... more along the lines of Casino Royale which didn't totally acknowledge the previous events (by making Bond a recent promotee to 00), but didn't explicitly deny them. It alluded to to their presence by including Judi Dench as M, much as this movie might include Sam Elliott as General Ross or something.
Precisely.
 
Stand alone story ala Superman Returns with a dash of a reboot or what the TheBeastWithin said.
 
Yeah... it's pretty much a sequel/reboot/retcon all rolled into one. Similar to Casino Royale and Superman Returns, but what exactly do we CALL this new phenomenon, a sebootcon? a requeboot? a retbootquel? Maybe just Requel? Yeah I like that. From now on a movie with an extreme change in tone and direction from it's predecessors and is meant to stand on it's own completely without them, yet doesn't contradict them in any monumental way shall now be known as a "requel." I'm trademarking that so nobody steal it.
 
requel... thats not bad :up:
 
This movie will hereby be known as HULK 2: The Apology
 
bryansinger.jpg


Vague history
 
It's a crappy restart, Eric Bana was a bad @$$. Ed Norton just pales in comparison.
 
It's a crappy restart, Eric Bana was a bad @$$. Ed Norton just pales in comparison.

Lay off the crack pipe. Not only is Norton an *infinitely* better actor than Bana, he even LOOKS a lot more like Banner than Bana did. One thing Bruce Banner is not is a beefy Super Model.
 
Lay off the crack pipe. Not only is Norton an *infinitely* better actor than Bana, he even LOOKS a lot more like Banner than Bana did. One thing Bruce Banner is not is a beefy Super Model.

You make it sound like Bana is a totally crap actor, the guy is amazing if he's given the chance. Norton is more suited to be banner but Bana isnt as crap as you are making him out to be.
 
You make it sound like Bana is a totally crap actor, the guy is amazing if he's given the chance. Norton is more suited to be banner but Bana isnt as crap as you are making him out to be.

I'm not saying he's crap. It's just that Edward Norton is THAT damn good.
 
I'm sorry, but Bana is crap. At least he was in Hulk. It was like watching a plank of wood, a sedated plank of wood.
 
Eric Bana gives an excellent version of Bruce Banner... He looks inexpressive? Yes, just 'cause Bruce Banner IS inexpressive and repressed!
 
what is with all the bana hate on here?

The guy did the best he could with what he had to work with at the time.

I like the first movie, and I think this one has the potential to be better if they keep certain elements and change others.

drop the multiple cameras, drop the fungus, focus on banner laying low.
 
Just call it what it is, a half assed sequel
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"