Doc Samson
Superhero Psychiatrist
- Joined
- May 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,624
- Reaction score
- 373
- Points
- 73
This is all just a matter of taste at the end of the day, and depending on what Hulk you grew up with, thats the one you most identify with. Personally, I don't see where this new design is more "Hulk-like" at all. In the face, IMO, he looks way more normal and human than Ang's did, the only difference being that Ang's was based off Bana's face whereas this one isn't directly based off Norton. The face may be a little more angry, or rugged, but it definitely is just as human if not moreso than Ang's. Actually, this design is toned way down in comparison to the concept art they first released.
That concept art, and Ang's Hulk, both looked much more neanderthal-ish, while still resembling Banner slightly, which to me, is the Hulk. The new version is much more in line with a Dale Keown drawing, being hyper-muscular and intense looking in the face, but not as bestial or gorilla-like, with the hunchback and extremley big hands and feet. Admiring Sal Buscema's rendition as a kid, the more gorilla neanderthal look is my idea of the Hulk, for some its the Keown look, for others its Lou Ferrigno in grease paint, and therein lies the problem when comparing cgi I think.
Whatever "look" you more closely identify with, the more your inclined to accept the cgi as being realistic or believable. To me, if the Hulk really existed, he would look more like Ang's version than this version, and thats just my opinion. Other people believe the other way, and nobody's wrong. I just think its easier, for me, to look at this new design and think its not as realistic, no matter how good the cgi is when completed, simply because its not my idea of what a transformed Edward Norton would really look like. When making comparisons I think its important to consider what your ideal image of a live-action Hulk is , and how that affects your judgement on whether something as ludicrous in theory as the Hulk, looks "real" or not....
That concept art, and Ang's Hulk, both looked much more neanderthal-ish, while still resembling Banner slightly, which to me, is the Hulk. The new version is much more in line with a Dale Keown drawing, being hyper-muscular and intense looking in the face, but not as bestial or gorilla-like, with the hunchback and extremley big hands and feet. Admiring Sal Buscema's rendition as a kid, the more gorilla neanderthal look is my idea of the Hulk, for some its the Keown look, for others its Lou Ferrigno in grease paint, and therein lies the problem when comparing cgi I think.
Whatever "look" you more closely identify with, the more your inclined to accept the cgi as being realistic or believable. To me, if the Hulk really existed, he would look more like Ang's version than this version, and thats just my opinion. Other people believe the other way, and nobody's wrong. I just think its easier, for me, to look at this new design and think its not as realistic, no matter how good the cgi is when completed, simply because its not my idea of what a transformed Edward Norton would really look like. When making comparisons I think its important to consider what your ideal image of a live-action Hulk is , and how that affects your judgement on whether something as ludicrous in theory as the Hulk, looks "real" or not....
