Stan Lee wants ANOTHER Hulk reboot?

[Hmarrs]

Even in motion he has more definition!!!
No comparison......That's the Hulk!!!

http://www.moviexplosion.com/hulk6.jpg

 

[Rock Sexton]

You yourself call it horrible.......So why not just face it.
Oh I get it let's close our eyes and look at it.It may look better.
How else do you want me to look at it.If it's a horrible picture then it was a horrible rendition.What's you point.In trying to make you point you defeat your purpose!!!...................

It's not a high def picture...... just some awful snapshot looking like it was taken from the only VHS copy of the movie in circulation. LOL.

Your obsession with this topic is getting scary.

 

[VenomVsSpidey]

why does Hmarrs use all caps and get so pissed? Like, I'm not being a ass...but seriously...

 

[david icke]

I don't imagine Hmarrs being 'pissed' when he uses caps and exclamations, I take enthusiasm from that, kind of like how Brian Blessed would be if he was a big Hulk fan, he doesn't post up anything in words that says 'anger' to me at all.

 

[kedrell]

The only thing Ang got right was the Hulk himself!
Only problem I had with him was that he got too big. Other then that if he had stayed at 9-10 feet he would have been perfect!

Color also was aweful. That shade works on a comic page but TIH had the right idea when it came to his color. Also, he shouldn't have been so tubby looking. Hulk should look muscular, not like someone who years ago used to be a bodybuilder and now only has the most vague semblence of his former physique. Also the proportions were at times pretty f-ed up(the afore mentioned jumping scene where his arms look like they come out of his waist). I'm not saying I'm in love with the Bruce Lee, striated look from TIH, but I'll take it over tubba-goo any day. And then there's the fact that TIH allowed Hulk to look plain mean when he was angry. That's something Anghulk missed with his insistence on the childlike, deer-in-the-headlights look. All that and the height issue you mentioned is why I prefer TIH's design over Anghulk's. Though it would have been nice to allow TIH to do some more impressive strength stuff, I'll agree. But that's what he does rather than a design issue.

 

[Timstuff]

Even in motion he has more definition!!!
No comparison......That's the Hulk!!!

http://www.moviexplosion.com/hulk6.jpg

I liked Leterrier's design for Hulk better, because he looked more monstrous/brutish. Lee's Hulk looks more like Taylor Launter after to much radioactive steroids.

 

[david icke]

I liked Leterrier's design for Hulk better, because he looked more monstrous/brutish. Lee's Hulk looks more like Taylor Launter after to much radioactive steroids.

I'm with you on the face, but it could still have looked more monstrous, like the original illustration they showed. As someone said earlier, they again made the mistake of trying to make Hulk look like the actor playing Banner.

As for the 'radioactive steroids' thing...the Ang Hulk looks like a healthy mix of muscle and fat, it's the LL Hulk that looks like he has been using unnatural aids to benefit his push ups, bodywise he looks like a slab of green sausage wrapped in metal wire ready for cutting at the butchers, looks like it would be painful to move those muscles, like a lot of steroid abusers do.

I would be interested to see what the LL design looked like if it had the same quality CGI work and money spent on it, but at a design level, that over wired muscle design is horrible to look at. He should look like a magnificent, noble monster as he is meant to be a hero, not a creature from the black lagoon eyesore monster that is meant to be a turn-off.

 

[Sarg92]

Some images from The Incredible Hulk which show that the CGI and design was pretty good and in some cases better than Ang Lee's Hulk.

Spoiler

 

[dcHulk]

Some images from The Incredible Hulk which show that the CGI and design was pretty good and in some cases better than Ang Lee's Hulk.

Spoiler

But *someone* in this forum will tell you that the top pic is "anatomically" impossible to achieve. Something to do with the position of the arms, or something like that. LOL. The BluRay version of the hulk in action really shows the overally quality of the CGI. But I think the best looking CGI was right after he takes down the helicopter and he's holding Betty.

 

[Cracker Jack]

Some of the shots in Ang's movie were dead on. However, I will never be able to get past this.

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah, Ang's Hulk, may have had more action scenes but the movie as a whole was so poorly paced that it doesn't really feel like it. Ang's Hulk got mirred in father-son psycho-drama far too often to really enjoy the action scenes, which were good except for the final scene. TIH almost ran at breakneck speed from the outset and probably could've benefitted from taking a breadth with some of the scenes involving Doc Samson. On the whole I enjoyed TIH a lot more than Ang's Hulk, and I really do feel that TIH could've been a great film without so many cuts.

Yes. Opinions are fine. I was talking about facts that were being distorted.

 

[Golgo-13]

The problem with rendering Hulk was the color of his skin. There is no reference's in nature for the animators to use, because there aren't any green skinned mammals with human texture to begin with to use as a guide. They probably did the animation with human flesh tone to it and it looked great, then added the green, then it didn't look right anymore, so they had to tweak it.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Some of the shots in Ang's movie were dead on. However, I will never be able to get past this.

This shot is the clearest example of why I hate the Ang design. Looks awful. Just a bloated taffy looking monstrocity.

 

[Sarg92]

The problem with rendering Hulk was the color of his skin. There is no reference's in nature for the animators to use, because there aren't any green skinned mammals with human texture to begin with to use as a guide. They probably did the animation with human flesh tone to it and it looked great, then added the green, then it didn't look right anymore, so they had to tweak it.

Then how come WETA were able to make photoreal alien creatures in Avatar? The Avatar's had a human skin texture but coloured blue and it looked real. WETA didn't have no reference to a blue skinned mammal with a human texture but they still managed to get the job done.

It is just that the CGI companies were either rushed or didn't have enough money to put all their resources into the work.

 

[Golgo-13]

Then how come WETA were able to make photoreal alien creatures in Avatar? The Avatar's had a human skin texture but coloured blue and it looked real. WETA didn't have no reference to a blue skinned mammal with a human texture but they still managed to get the job done.

It is just that the CGI companies were either rushed or didn't have enough money to put all their resources into the work.

The aliens in Avatar are aliens, they can look anyway they want them to look and we accepted it. Their flesh doesn't have to look like human flesh with pores, skin tone variables, hair, etc because they're an alien that doesn't really exist. The Hulk is a biologically human based creature with enhanced physical attributes ie, his muscles but his skin has to look like human skin, not alien, that's the difference.To me the aliens in Avatar didn't look like human flesh skin at all. They looked fleshy, but not as intricate as the skin variables of real human skin.

The cg in TIH sucked. The design of Hulk himself was fine, but the rendering was far inferior to the work ILM did. As i noted before, i think this was done on purpose, as i can't fathom anybody in charge over there looking at certain shots in that movie, and saying, "that looks great". I believe they wanted Hulk to look more cartoony in TIH to take away for the serious tone of the 2003 Ang movie, and make it more superhero-y.

 

[Sarg92]

The aliens in Avatar are aliens, they can look anyway they want them to look and we accepted it. Their flesh doesn't have to look like human flesh with pores, skin tone variables, hair, etc because they're an alien that doesn't really exist. The Hulk is a biologically human based creature with enhanced physical attributes ie, his muscles but his skin has to look like human skin, not alien, that's the difference.To me the aliens in Avatar didn't look like human flesh skin at all. They looked fleshy, but not as intricate as the skin variables of real human skin.

The cg in TIH sucked. The design of Hulk himself was fine, but the rendering was far inferior to the work ILM did. As i noted before, i think this was done on purpose, as i can't fathom anybody in charge over there looking at certain shots in that movie, and saying, "that looks great". I believe they wanted Hulk to look more cartoony in TIH to take away for the serious tone of the 2003 Ang movie, and make it more superhero-y.

The Avatars, not the Na'vi, are the closest and best comparison that can be made seeing as they are humanoid in appearance and are of an unusual skin colour but with different proportions like Hulk.

Check out the image in the spoiler tags of the Avatar which really shows off the brilliance and detail of the CGI.

Spoiler

Marvel really went out all cheap with TIH, seeing as they went with Rhythm and Hues for the CGI who are not suited for big blockbuster films! Only ILM and WETA have the resources to make a photoreal Hulk! Leterrier said in a recent interview that he wasn't able to do a lot of the stuff he wanted because the producers and Marvel just said no as they didn't have the time and money to do so! TIH was a rush job and the CGI studio tried their best with the time, money and resources available; they actually said that they didn't have enough time to complete all the CGI.

 

[shogunrua]

Some of the shots in Ang's movie were dead on. However, I will never be able to get past this.

no neck ...

 

[kedrell]

Hmm, to me "man boobs" was what first came to mind when seeing that pic.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

those are called pecs there chief. Man boobs are something fat guys have, those hardly look like man boobs

and I clearly see a neck

 

[kedrell]

He IS fat. And they definitely resemble b!#ch ****. Reminds me of Fight Club.TIH on the other hand, actually looked like pecs.

 

[Golgo-13]

The Avatars, not the Na'vi, are the closest and best comparison that can be made seeing as they are humanoid in appearance and are of an unusual skin colour but with different proportions like Hulk.

Check out the image in the spoiler tags of the Avatar which really shows off the brilliance and detail of the CGI.

Spoiler

Marvel really went out all cheap with TIH, seeing as they went with Rhythm and Hues for the CGI who are not suited for big blockbuster films! Only ILM and WETA have the resources to make a photoreal Hulk! Leterrier said in a recent interview that he wasn't able to do a lot of the stuff he wanted because the producers and Marvel just said no as they didn't have the time and money to do so! TIH was a rush job and the CGI studio tried their best with the time, money and resources available; they actually said that they didn't have enough time to complete all the CGI.

O.k that Na'vi rendering does look brilliant now that i've examined it close up. Too bad Hulk didn't look half that great.

I'm all for Hulk being re-booted at this point, but i say they wait at least until after Avengers 2. Not only did i think that TIH could have been better, but i didn't buy Ed Norton as Banner. I can't quite put my finger on it, but everytime he was on screen i kept thinking "It's Ed Norton, playing Banner" rather than me believing he actually was Dr.Banner. I'm not a big IM fan by any stretch in fact, i didn't like IM2, but i truly believed that RDJ was Tony Starks when he was on screen. I truly believed Toby was Peter Parker when he was on screen. Hulk is Marvels second tentpole character after Spider-Man. Even after IM great success, Hulk is still much more recognizable than IM throughout our modern culture. So in that respect i'll have to agree with Stan Lee. This time cast a relatively unknown actor as Banner...i just hope Stan The Man is around to see his popular creation finally done right.

 

[kedrell]

Maybe for you it was just that Norton was too well known an actor before-hand. I mean, so were RDJ & Tobey but they're successes pre-superhero films were small compared with Norton's. I've always thought that another actor who would do well would be Billy Crudup.

 

[TheVelvetOnion]

I thought incredible hulk was good and think they should follow on with edward norton as the hulk, he is clearly the better hulk.

dont think the series needs a reboot its just the hulk is one of those characters that isnt really a new story, in essence it is just a jekle and hyde story, theres only so many times you can tell it.

 

[Golgo-13]

Billy Crudup would make a good Banner.

Liv Tyler was pretty cringe worthy as well. I don't know if it was the acting itself, or her pouty lips saying "Oh, Bruce" every 5 seconds. Connelly was a much better Betty, depressing as she comes off in alot of her movies.

I'm still fixated on Ashley Judd as Betty Ross. If this movie was done some years back she would have been perfect; but then again, the CG technology wouldn't be where it is today. I have no problem with her current age, but the studio and some others might.

 

[Rumpy Bulge Dubz]

in essence it is just a jekle and hyde story, theres only so many times you can tell it.

I disagree, I think the comics and 70's television series are proof that there's PLENTY of stories to tell when it comes to the Hulk and that he's more than just a "jeckle and hyde story".