That's just it - we got a redesign for TIH so to establish that it wasnt Ang Lee's Hulk. If this is the same Hulk as the Hulk from TIH, then there should be no redesign [save for tailoring the face from Norton's to Ruffalo's], there should only be better, updated fx.
But I'm biased - TIH Hulk was the closest theyve come this far to giving me the Hulk of my childhood.
Same here...except my memory sees the Hulk as more like the Ang Lee version.
t:
Those who remember him this way...
...Probably like the TIH version better. While those who remember him like this...
Probably like the Ang Lee version better.
Less "veiny". I'm a bit put off by the insane look of TIH version. He actually looks dumber too...which bothers me. Not that the Hulk is smart...but the TIH version looks
incapable of speech.
Well, I'm sorry but thinking like that, you're never gonna get the Hulk you want then. Marvel paid Mickey Rourke and such $500,000 for IM2. I don't know what the exact pay is, but at this point, it's not gonna matter if the actor is less known or not.
I can understand what you want, but they're never gonna shell out that much money for alll those stuff for Hulk. I just think cinematically, it's good to hold off on Hulk. Because you want him to turn, he shouldn't be there in every other scene. You need to know Banner too. I understand they're too different beings. But it's limited in that aspect. It just can't be done as much as you want it to be done. I think with more Hulk it would still fall into the trap of overshadowing Banner and just being there and relying more on the CG and not the actor. That would be just one of the criticisms. I think no matter what you do, you can't show too much of Hulk.
So I'd just go with whatever they're doing if I were you and stop hoping for all of this. Because you might be disapointed again. I'm more excited about the actors themselves coming together than I am about the action scenes with them, though I will be excited as hell to see that. But I think it will be a waste of Ruffalo or any actor playing the role if they rely more on Hulk.
After a TV show and two movies devoted to him....are we not intimately familiar with Banner? (by "we" I mean the general public) It's the Hulk we know nothing about. A Hulk movie with zero Banner would still not catch the Hulk character up to him. It's actually impossible for the Hulk to overshadow Banner at this point. Reminds of the continued focus on Wolverine in the X-films to the detriment of all the other characters. Focusing on one of the other characters for a movie would still not catch them up to Logan.
Developing Banner is the
last thing we have to worry about. That's been done over and over. DC needs to realize this same thing with Lex Luthor. No one is going to need that character explained to them.
I actually have more hope for the Avengers version of the Hulk. No way they can make this one all about Banner and ignore the Hulk again. Who knows....maybe the audience will finally see him as a real character!
The makers of the Lord of the Rings films didn't skimp on Gollum and it paid off. Audiences knew him and got wrapped up in his story. Contrast that with how audiences saw the Hulk. There was nothing there...so they talked about his special effects instead.
If Marvel is happy with the grosses of the Hulk movies, by all means continue doing them the way they've done them. If they want the Hulk to move up the ladder to where Iron Man is, the Hulk will have to become a real character at some point. The public obviously doesn't care about Banner movies.
Yea, I'm gonna go ahead and agree with this. It would be extremely difficult for any filmmaker to develop Hulk if there is no Bruce Banner. He's just be this giant monster who just breaks things. Banner is where that true development comes in, and the Hulk is a natural progression of his character, along with a physical manifestation of his anger. Without Hulk, there is no Banner, without Banner, there is no Hulk. He'd be uninteresting and just be there for mindless people to go "ZOMG hoolk xD". I'm not saying you are one of those, but I go to a high school who finds Bruce Banner to be boring. You need Banner to develop Hulk so when Hulk is getting his ass kicked or kicking ass, you feel and root for him.
The problem here is that the Hulk character is
not developed. Despite focusing almost entirely on Banner (or in my mind
because of it), the Hulk is seen as "this giant monster who just breaks things". So that approach is
not working. So how about trying something different since we've seen the "focus on Banner" approach fail so many times?
Banner is fully developed. That part is done. So why don't we use the exact same logic when talking about the Hulk character? Instead of
only saying "Banner has to have a lot of screen time to be developed as a character", we
also say "The Hulk has to have a lot of screen time to be developed as a character"? Isn't that fair to him?
Why the big worry about a character that has
already dominated all the footage in the history of the franchise? That's like saying the New York Yankees need more money to spend on free agents. (sports references ftw!
) Is it logical to say that continuing to ignore the Hulk character is the best way to develop him? Would we do that to Tony Stark or Thor?
Sore point for me I guess. I've heard one too many times that the Hulk character "doesn't work onscreen". How anyone could possibly know that when the Hulk character has never been
put onscreen I dunno. And some of my best comic reading moments were of the Hulk character....a much more interesting guy than Banner to me. The Hulk has a completely different personality that is very endearing and I think that personality would be a hit with movie-goers if he ever gets a chance.
