The Movie Just Didn't Cut It

Lee´s Hulk was amazing, not perfect, could be better, but still, the best comic book movie so far.
Hope TIH is half of what Hulk was

 

I was in the huge minority who actually like'd Ang's Hulk, but the best comic book movie so far? You must be joking. It's everything the topic starter said, but I overlooked it's flaws and saw it's many good points.

It's clear Ang Lee didn't know anything about The Hulk. It maintains nothing of the spirit of the original comic other than the very basic elements. That said, I enjoyed it. But the best? Not even close. It's way too disjointed and soul-less.

 

I´m sorry to dissapoint you, but the ones that say that are the ones that know little about the character

But please, enlight me, where did he went wrong?
What didn´t Lee understood about the character?

 

Ang got close but I'd say your post is not far off.

 

He admittedly didn't know much about the Hulk. Here is a direct quote:

and then this:

Do you see the problem? Sure he read some comics, but his vision is so unnecessarilycomplex. It's a about a guy who when he gets mad, turns big and green. That's it at it's heart. Lee's vision is so convoluted and heavy. It's a movie based on a comic book not Shakespeare.

 

I don´t care how much he knows about the character, because he did an AMAZING homework.
In the end, he went from a guy that didn´t knew much, to a guy that knows a lot more than many fanboys.
In the end, it just shows how intelligent and sensible Ang Lee is, many take years to understand what he did in a couple of months.

No...

Eehhhhhhh....no
Comic books are complex and to arrive to that conclusion, all you have to do is read and undertand what you are reading, not just look at the pretty pictures.

That is just so wrong in so many ways is not even funny.
Clearly you don´t know what you are talking about, and before you get all defensive about it, you are the one admitting that by your statement.
What you describe up there is just a little detail of the complexaty of the character.

And then we came to the realty of it all, you don´t like comics, you just like the pretty pictures, the fights and the powers and whatnot.
And when i say you don´t like comics, is because that´s my first reaction to someone that says that, it´s not Shakespeare.
And the sad part is, when it comes to fans, you are not alone on that, many say exactly the same thing, which is totally wrong in so many ways.
What if you give powers to Romeo and Juliet, would it make it less romantic and epic?
I´m not comparing comic books to Shakespeare because that would be just stupid, i´m just saying that things have quality in their own right, you just to look at it and understand it.

In one Wizard issue, a couple of years ago, i read someone saying (don´t remember who, just that he was a big name) comic books only are called "comics" because that title is old and loved by all, but to be blunt about it, they should be called Tragic Comics.
And that´s truthful....
People just don´t take the time to look at the characters, just what they can do.
Superman is an alien, the only survivor of a extinct race, living in a world that´s not his.
That alone is extremely dramatic and powerful.
Forget the powers for a bit, imagine yourself not be able to blend in, to force yourself to "invisible", for people not to notice you, imagine how lonely he must feel sometimes....
That´s just an example, but this is what comic books are, tragic and dramatic stories of larger-than-life characters.

Ang Lee understood that, and he got "crucified" by that...

 

The funniest thing is that I actually liked the movie very much. I skimmed over your post, I love how I give my opinions, and blow hards like you then give your own opinions plus, tell me how I really feel about comics and other things. Thank you for telling me how I actually feel about things. For now on I'll look to you for my opinions.

 

Dude, when you write down things like, Hulk is a about a guy who when he gets mad, turns big and green. That's it at it's heart; you clearly are wrong, so, either your joking, or you don´t know what your talking about.
That´s the same that saying that Superman is just a guy that cames from another planet and flies around, Batman is just a guy that puts on a cape and cowl and jump from rooftop to rooftop, and Spider-Man is just a guy bitten by a radioactive spider, shoots webs and like to crack jokes while fighting.

If i´m wrong, sorry, but you were the one that wrote that, not me.

Hulk is, at heart, about a guy who when he gets mad, turns into his own repressed feelings. Those feelings have the form of a giant, green goliath.
That alone, not only is complex, it makes for a very psychological movie, exactly what Ang did.

 

Ang's movie failed in terms of film making, leaving aside the faithfulness to the character.

To begin with, he didn't know his crowd. The people who come to a Hulk movie expect an action flick. Ang's movie was too boring in the first act and it took too long for Banner to become Hulk, not a good thing to do in an action flick.

Second, he made it too smart. Again, the Hulk is AN ACTION FLICK movie. It should be on par with Live Free or Die Hard, and not try to be a Pans Labyrinth or Citizen Kane. Ang didn't cater to his audience, which as I've said, were all expecting an action movie. Bad move on his choice.

Thirdly, The movie was too confusing. The way Ang edited the movie, what with the comic book panel look, was distracting and annoying. If he wanted to make it look more "comic like" he should have gone the Sin City route, the comic panels were just annoying.

The story's climax wasn't that great either. It was a bit confusing as to what the father's powers were, as well as how Hulk managed to beat him. The final fight was also underwhelming. This is a Hulk movie, we needed to see more Hulk smash and less Hulk emoting.

Overall, the movie wasn't bad. It certainly wasn't a Batman and Robin or a Ghostrider, but it was in no way close to the quality of a Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, or X-men 2.

 

Each point you make is dead on accurate. It's actually a bit scary to hear your opinions on Ang's Hulk that so closely match my own. The only, and I mean only thing I disagree is the comic panels, I actually liked that angle.

 

LOL.

But true.

 

Well, first thing a Hulk movie doesn't have to be an action film. Which doesn't mean it doesn't have to have action of course.

It's like expecting a Frankenstein mvoie to resemble the structure of an action film. It could be but it's not a must.

You'll say, but it's what audiences want. It could be, that doesn't make it a good idea.

That said, the first time Banner becomes the Hulk is at 45 minutes. Superman in STM has a brief apparition at 45 minutes (exact same amount of time) but his first appariotion is at 60 minutes into the movie. Same with Batman in B Begins (60 minutes). Those characters took longer than Hulk to be on screen.

Sure.

So, superhero movies need to be dumbed down.

Again, not a good idea even if it means more money.

That's where I can't disagree more.

Hulk = Die Hard?

Again, it might mean more money but I can't see the 'must' into this. I mean, being Hulk and not Rambo.

Bad move as a money maker. But not even close to be a "failure in terms of film making" as you said.

That's true.

Whiule some of them added a grea deal into the movie (intimate scenes where you can see all of the characters' eyes at the same time, building a great atmosphere) it went confusing at several parts.

Too true. The ending was weak and ruined the premise: Hulk vs Father.

But then again, what is in that final fight about emotion as opposite to Hulk smash?

We see very much of Hulk smashing in the movie. And in the last scene, but that didn't hjlp the ending.

Well I know about the popularity of BB, V for V and X2 amongst fans. But I certainly see many flaws in all of them.

 

Hulk is not an action movie, no comic book is an action movie....unless you don´t know/understand the characters, and even that doesn´t make it an action movie.
They all have action, that´s a given, that´s inherent to the genre, but to have action and to be an action movie are two totally diferent things.

Ang´s Hulk has may flaws, but to fail in terms of filmmaking is hardly one of them, Lee is one of the finest directors working.

 

Hulk made the fundamental mistake of trusting audiences to really invest in the emotions of the character, when all audiences want is to see "bang", "pow" and "flash". I still feel like this is one of the closest to perfect comic movies in terms of tone. Obviously there are some bad parts to the story, but it's so deep and worthwhile that you forget about those quickly.

 

Hulk was a good movie. It had its mistakes though. Biggest being, Hulk got WAY TOO BIG. Way too big.

Other than that, I thought it was probably the comic movie that did a good job making you feel for the characters. It didn't need to be a comedy. Ghost Rider tried that and ouch. That was a decently good movie but it could have been TONS better. The lightness and Ghost Rider's lines REALLY dissapointed me.

 

Hulk has to be an action film, or a film with heavy action, to make it as a movie. The simple reason is because that is what moviegoers expect. They want to see a movie with a lot of action. Now, when I say action movie, I don't mean a mindless smash and explosion action fest. The Hulk movie most definitely needs to have a good storyline. I would expect a Hulk movie to have the same kind of action/story mix that Jurassic Park (first movie) had. That good action scenes, but it still had a solid story and interesting characters. Was there oscar-worthy acting going on? No, but it was enough to make a good movie.

The difference with those two movies is that they still had enough action scenes in them to keep the audience interested. We still saw Superman using his powers before he became Superman. We still see bruce beating the crap out of prisoners and training with ninja's.

With Hulk, we saw Bruce doing scientific experiments. That's not as engaging as the beginnings of BB and STM.

I didn't say it had to be dumbed down, what I said was that they shouldn't try to be too smart. Hulk tried to be an intense psychological examination of Bruce Banner's emotions and life. That's not what the general public, and most of the comic fans expected or wanted. Yes, we still want elements of that in a Hulk story, but don't let that aspect of the plot dominate the whole movie.

No, I don't expect the Hulk to be a Rambo, nor would I want it to be. As I said above, I want the Hulk to be an action movie more along the lines of Jurassic Park, Gladiator, or X-men 2. Movies with solid stories and lots of good action.

Oh I agree, they certainly have many flaws in them, but I still think they were superior movies then Hulk was.

 

So you are actually criticising him for putting some intellegence in the movie!?

Your kidding me right, it was a goddamn nice change to see a director treat his audience with respect.

 

I love 'Hulk', I still watch it regularly. However on first showing I hated it, I was bored out of my mind and really didn't pay much attention apart from when the hulk was onscreen. That said, second viewing I liked it more and understood the story better, third viewing was even better and so on and so on, now it's one of my favourite movies .

 

I liked the Hulk movie but it fell down in a few areas...

1) over-complex origin - father's experiments, genetic abnormality, sea creatures, nanomeds, gamma exposure.... far too much going on there!

2) arty shots of lichen and rocks, too dreary!

3) the audience didn't know about comicbook Hulk, their reference was the TV series, so a lot of people lost enthusiasm when they saw Hulk leaping miles across the desert, which they felt was too comicbooky. I liked it, but I knew the comics. The audience thought it was too extreme.

4) mutant super-poodle = bad idea!

5) Bana played the character in a rather dull way, probably due to the script or directing. He was hard to care about because he was so wooden.

I did like Absorbing Dad turning into a jellyfish-like form of pure energy at the end, but I know a lot of people didn't like that either!

 

There was a line in "The West Wing", which I can't remember word for word at the moment.

They were debating a word in a speech, one writer having the issue that not a lot of people would know it. The president strides into the room, as Martin Sheen tends to do...
"They can look it up. I'm not going to hide my education, and isn't the job of an educated man to educate people?"

Something like that anyway. I'd rather open a dictionary than feel like they're lowering the bar so we unintelligent peons can follow along, which is what a lot of this Hollywood crap does these days. They beat you over the head with it, when's there's still something to be said for subtlety.
Either that, or they just don't know what the word means.

-Vaportrail

 

Ang Lee thought HE was too intelligent, not the audience.....

 

And he was right on both counts

 

Obviously the definition of right varies somewhat in your part of the world

 

According to every possible dictionary, obviously not.

On the other hand, perception of movies traditionally...