The Avengers The Official 'Hulk in Avengers' thread. - Part 3

[Dark Raven]

I'd rather say it's more interesting and intelligent storytelling if they don't just go with the obvious bad guys that are just wrong in everything they do. A villain that has no redeeming qualities is usually a boring and flat villain and that's bad (or at least simple) story telling, just like protagonists that are flawless.

The movie could have been even more interesting if the Hulk did more bad deeds unintentionally.

It depends what you mean by "bad deeds". What I liked about the TV Hulk characterisation was that, because David Banner wouldn't kill, that meant the Hulk wouldn't kill. However, he did still occasionally injure people. One such incident was in the episode "A Solitary Place" where he threw something at a jeep which was carrying McGee and another guy. The other guy, who was driving, was propelled forward and he injured his throat, causing him to nearly stop breathing until another doctor (who had been hiding out with Banner) went to save him, otherwise he would've died.

I liked though that he didn't kill anyone and as a monster, still seemed genuiniely childlike, caring and sensitive. He seemed to have a soft spot towards animals, women and children. That is an aspect I still would like to see with the new Hulk, either in the Avengers or in the new TV show.

 

[Norm3]

It probably also has to deal with the fact it could come across as EXTREMELY cheesy and ridiculous. Keeping him as silent as possible to them may make them feel like he will be taken more seriously on screen.

Seeing a giant CGI created green beast man in purple shorts talking and expressing himself. It's inherently kind of ridiculous. Works with Lou Ferrigno because he's real. The human eye can't be tricked into believing computer generated human mannerisms. Our eyes catch subtle things that can't be created. Now, a giant CGI created ape. THAT works.

Was the Abomination talking ridiculous?

 

[Quasimod0]

How do you do that on screen and take him seriously? How much do you have him speak? Especially if you use Lou Ferrigno's handicap sounding voice? haha

They say the second your story's protagonist turns into something or someone completely else ... you lose the viewer.

And still I don't know if CGI is good enough, or at least what Marvel Studios tries spending on, if it's good enough to create a completely believable image, let alone have that image speak.

Like I said a complete CGI creation can be believable to an extent on non-human like creatures. But it is still yet to be done to be totally believable.

BTW who is doing the VFX work this time around on CGI Hulk for Avengers? Are they sparing no expense? Or they going the extremely cheap and fake looking route they did in 2008 w/ TIH?

Because how a VFX creation from ILM from 2003 can look more believable than a VFX creation five years later is completely inexcuseable to me.

Hulk in TIH was extremely cheap and fake looking? Since when, I thought he looked great. We're getting spoiled

 

[Godzilla2014]

I'd rather say it's more interesting and intelligent storytelling if they don't just go with the obvious bad guys that are just wrong in everything they do. A villain that has no redeeming qualities is usually a boring and flat villain and that's bad (or at least simple) story telling, just like protagonists that are flawless.

The movie could have been even more interesting if the Hulk did more bad deeds unintentionally.

I agree. I think the film should show Hulk's power could cause even without malicious intent.

It depends what you mean by "bad deeds". What I liked about the TV Hulk characterisation was that, because David Banner wouldn't kill, that meant the Hulk wouldn't kill. However, he did still occasionally injure people. One such incident was in the episode "A Solitary Place" where he threw something at a jeep which was carrying McGee and another guy. The other guy, who was driving, was propelled forward and he injured his throat, causing him to nearly stop breathing until another doctor (who had been hiding out with Banner) went to save him, otherwise he would've died.

I liked though that he didn't kill anyone and as a monster, still seemed genuiniely childlike, caring and sensitive. He seemed to have a soft spot towards animals, women and children. That is an aspect I still would like to see with the new Hulk, either in the Avengers or in the new TV show.

I agree with this.

Was the Abomination talking ridiculous?

Agreed.

 

[Mjölnir]

It depends what you mean by "bad deeds". What I liked about the TV Hulk characterisation was that, because David Banner wouldn't kill, that meant the Hulk wouldn't kill. However, he did still occasionally injure people. One such incident was in the episode "A Solitary Place" where he threw something at a jeep which was carrying McGee and another guy. The other guy, who was driving, was propelled forward and he injured his throat, causing him to nearly stop breathing until another doctor (who had been hiding out with Banner) went to save him, otherwise he would've died.

I liked though that he didn't kill anyone and as a monster, still seemed genuiniely childlike, caring and sensitive. He seemed to have a soft spot towards animals, women and children. That is an aspect I still would like to see with the new Hulk, either in the Avengers or in the new TV show.

I don't know if I agree that qualities like childlike, caring and sensitive should be too prominent in an uncontrolled being that's brought out by the rage of his host. At least not when he comes out, although when he's still the Hulk but has calmed down, or is confronted with something very important to Banner, I can imagine some more serene qualities. Still those kind of thoughts seem to be the things that would make the Hulk transform back into Banner.

On the avengers I expect him to be more sentient than before so there I expect a more diverse personality but also something more mature than what is described as childlike.

But to go back to the 'bad deeds', I wouldn't have minded that the Hulk unintentionally killed more people as the uncontrolled Hulk can get into rage and survival mode. He could even get sad when he notices what he's done but it would play up how extremely dangerous he is and the audience would be torn between liking him and thinking that it would perhaps be best if he was cured.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Very good point. Not only that but if we are to be excited about the Hulk's appearance, we as the audience are rooting directly against the protagonist of the film, who is trying to rid himself of the Hulk. It makes for a very awkward dynamic in terms of the viewing experience.

Exactly. And it only gets more awkward during battle sequences with the U.S. Military.

I didn't feel that way at all. From onset, the movie established that Ross was obsessed with the Hulk's capture. Like the comic, he was tunnel-visioned, hard-headed, and reckless. The man almost kills his own daughter (and constantly puts his soliders in harm's way) because he's so fanatical about taking Banner into custody.

It took Abby's carnage for Ross to finally realize that he had been acting like an idiot. I never thought that TIH's dynamic was overly ambiguous in that aspect.

 

[Juicy J]

I didn't feel that way at all. From onset, the movie established that Ross was obsessed with the Hulk's capture. Like the comic, he was tunnel-visioned, hard-headed, and reckless. The man almost kills his own daughter (and constantly puts his soliders in harm's way) because he's so fanatical about taking Banner into custody.

It took Abby's carnage for Ross to finally realize that he had been acting like an idiot. I never thought that TIH's dynamic was overly ambiguous in that aspect.

Yeah I don't understand what they're complaining about. The movie clearly set Ross as the antagonist, which in turn makes the military the antagonist. Don't know how anyone was confused as to who to pull for.

 

[terry78]

The thing is, we as fans will never want Banner to be rid of the Hulk, because he has never really been viewed as an antagonist. Anything he's done has always been a reaction to something someone else has done, whether or not it was an overreaction.

 

[El Payaso]

Was the Abomination talking ridiculous?

For me it almost was. Specially saying Clint Eastwood-style things "Is that all you've got?" "Any last words?" or like some wrestling star, "Give me a REAL fight!"

Thing would be to define what Hulk could say. Intelligent argumentations in the third person ("Hulk says we must wait first and then attack"), redundant description of what he's doing/will do, in the third person ("Hulk attack humans with this, Hulk jumps away, Hulk stops that missile"). More-than-obvious and again redundant self-pity sentences ("The world hates Hulk, why do the world hate Hulk? Puny humans are weak, Hulk strong. Hulk alone, Why must Hulk always be alone?").

Not saying it's not possible, but there's some serious risk of it not working on screen.

 

[terry78]

They just needed to honestly take a cue from the Avengers cartoon, where he has a deep voice but doesn't sound like, for lack of a better term, a ******. When he said, "leave me alone" in TIH, that sounded fine.

 

[Lantern Venom]

For me it almost was. Specially saying Clint Eastwood-style things "Is that all you've got?" "Any last words?" or like some wrestling star, "Give me a REAL fight!"

.

What would you have liked him to have said? Blonsky was a loose-cannon type of soldier, who understandably delivered testosterone-laced one-liners. To have him speak in a different manner as Abby wouldn't have made sense.

They just needed to honestly take a cue from the Avengers cartoon, where he has a deep voice but doesn't sound like, for lack of a better term, a ******. When he said, "leave me alone" in TIH, that sounded fine.

I agree fully. They should keep his dialogue short and basic, but not stupid.

 

[El Payaso]

What would you have liked him to have said? Blonsky was a loose-cannon type of soldier, who understandably delivered testosterone-laced one-liners. To have him speak in a different manner as Abby wouldn't have made sense.

It's not a matter of making sense as much as it's having a big monster talking but not sounding almost laughable. Which was my entire point to begin with. I said I myself didn't know what could Hulk say if he were to talk more than 2 lines.

Me? Id' rather have a roaring Abomination, which makes more sense for a killing machine.

 

[fixxxer1022]

just got done watching TIH tonight again and while i loved it i agree it wasn't up to par with ironman, thor or captain. i think the changes to the hulk in the avengers and recasting banner again will confuse alot of people.

im also assuming if we get a hulk 2 they will again recast betty.

 

[Juicy J]

just got done watching TIH tonight again and while i loved it i agree it wasn't up to par with ironman, thor or captain. i think the changes to the hulk in the avengers and recasting banner again will confuse alot of people.

im also assuming if we get a hulk 2 they will again recast betty.

I think it'll throw some people for a loop but I doubt it'll completely block anyone's enjoyment of the movie, depending on how they handle the character. In a weird way it's kind of a good thing that TIH was Marvel's least successful movie since the main character ended up getting recast.
One thing that I've been thinking about for a while now is how, in a way, recasting certain roles could, in the long run, work out in marvel's favor.
I mean think about it. They've already set a precedent early in the game with Rhodey that recasting people and having a revolving door of actors is not out of the question. They did it again with the Hulk, one of the more high profile characters, reinforcing the fact that any character is fair game. In a way it spreads out the longevity of the characters, as they're not completely tied to certain actors. This can be used to keep the MCU continuity going for years, allowing other people to possibly step in and take the reigns from one of the other actors if they get to old or something.
Just a thought.

 

[Kirmit]

I find it hilarious that we can accept a lion talking, a squid faced man talking, giant blue cat people talking but a giant green man talking is ridiculous? Lol, this place cracks me up.

 

[Xeno]

I think it'll throw some people for a loop but I doubt it'll completely block anyone's enjoyment of the movie, depending on how they handle the character. In a weird way it's kind of a good thing that TIH was Marvel's least successful movie since the main character ended up getting recast.
One thing that I've been thinking about for a while now is how, in a way, recasting certain roles could, in the long run, work out in marvel's favor.
I mean think about it. They've already set a precedent early in the game with Rhodey that recasting people and having a revolving door of actors is not out of the question. They did it again with the Hulk, one of the more high profile characters, reinforcing the fact that any character is fair game. In a way it spreads out the longevity of the characters, as they're not completely tied to certain actors. This can be used to keep the MCU continuity going for years, allowing other people to possibly step in and take the reigns from one of the other actors if they get to old or something.
Just a thought.

Five guys have worn that rubber Batsuit since 1989 and the audience hasn't batted an eye at it. Two Bruce Banners won't cause a moment's concern.

 

[cherokeesam]

I find it hilarious that we can accept a lion talking, a squid faced man talking, giant blue cat people talking but a giant green man talking is ridiculous? Lol, this place cracks me up.

Amen, brotha.

 

[Mjölnir]

It's not a matter of making sense as much as it's having a big monster talking but not sounding almost laughable. Which was my entire point to begin with. I said I myself didn't know what could Hulk say if he were to talk more than 2 lines.

Me? Id' rather have a roaring Abomination, which makes more sense for a killing machine.

A roaring Abomination at that stage would just be another Hulk and it would just come down to being more powerful. As it was the audience could instead feel that the Abomination was a more dangerous creature since it maintained it's intelligence. That gives the fight a higher level of dynamic.

 

[Norm3]

For me it almost was. Specially saying Clint Eastwood-style things "Is that all you've got?" "Any last words?" or like some wrestling star, "Give me a REAL fight!"

Thing would be to define what Hulk could say. Intelligent argumentations in the third person ("Hulk says we must wait first and then attack"), redundant description of what he's doing/will do, in the third person ("Hulk attack humans with this, Hulk jumps away, Hulk stops that missile"). More-than-obvious and again redundant self-pity sentences ("The world hates Hulk, why do the world hate Hulk? Puny humans are weak, Hulk strong. Hulk alone, Why must Hulk always be alone?").

Not saying it's not possible, but there's some serious risk of it not working on screen.

So you didn't like the lines or just the talking in general?

 

[Norm3]

Its funny how people will complain about the Hulk speaking but forget about the Abomination talking or the Thing talking in the FF movies. I'm sorry but I want the creature hero's & villains to speak in my marvel movie universe just like their comic book counter parts.

 

[Norm3]

just got done watching TIH tonight again and while i loved it i agree it wasn't up to par with ironman, thor or captain. i think the changes to the hulk in the avengers and recasting banner again will confuse alot of people.

im also assuming if we get a hulk 2 they will again recast betty.

The average movie goer weren't confused by Norton replacing Bana or even cared. Joe average movie goer is not abscessing over who's playing Banner. They just want a good movie.

 

[terry78]

The less they talk, the more they just seem like CG creations.

 

[Norm3]

I think it'll throw some people for a loop but I doubt it'll completely block anyone's enjoyment of the movie, depending on how they handle the character. In a weird way it's kind of a good thing that TIH was Marvel's least successful movie since the main character ended up getting recast.
One thing that I've been thinking about for a while now is how, in a way, recasting certain roles could, in the long run, work out in marvel's favor.
I mean think about it. They've already set a precedent early in the game with Rhodey that recasting people and having a revolving door of actors is not out of the question. They did it again with the Hulk, one of the more high profile characters, reinforcing the fact that any character is fair game. In a way it spreads out the longevity of the characters, as they're not completely tied to certain actors. This can be used to keep the MCU continuity going for years, allowing other people to possibly step in and take the reigns from one of the other actors if they get to old or something.
Just a thought.

I agree the fan boys need to get use to it. Its going to happen like it did in the James Bond & Batman movies. Even in the new Spider-man movies. Some actors will not want to make 6 super hero movies. Were lucky when we get three movies with the same actor. I'm sure glad Betty Ross will be recast just didn't like Liv Tyler in the role.

 

[El Payaso]

I find it hilarious that we can accept a lion talking, a squid faced man talking, giant blue cat people talking but a giant green man talking is ridiculous? Lol, this place cracks me up.

Let's not forget talking tin men, scarecrows and in Disney's case, even kettles.

Any more oranges and apples we want to compare?

Those characters are set in a completely fantastic context surrounded by magic, witches, dragons, etc. Hulk has, in movies, always depicted in a mostly realistic tone. Like many moviemakers that work on superhero movies love to say, the real world with something that's super-human in the middle. And it's in that context where it needs to work. When you agree that magic and witches are not a Hulk thing (I know it might have happened in comics, but that kind of fantasy is not the core tone for Hulk) then your comparisons don't work.

Let's think of a talking King Kong.

A roaring Abomination at that stage would just be another Hulk and it would just come down to being more powerful. As it was the audience could instead feel that the Abomination was a more dangerous creature since it maintained it's intelligence. That gives the fight a higher level of dynamic.

You make a good point. Even when intelligence is not only about talking.

If some fans had got their way, both monsters should have talked. But you're right. At the very least that made a big difference between both monsters.

So you didn't like the lines or just the talking in general?

I mean, the lines made it difficult for me to watch it with a straight face. Not impossible, but a little difficult to accept.

Now I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. But what the monsters say is what, IMO, will define if it is worth the while or not.

In some interview, Stan Lee said that the reason Hulk talked was that in comics works perfectly. It's even necessary, as he felt you couldn't have a roaring monster page after page. He also said that he didn't mind a roaring Hulk on TV because that kind of changes are in order to make things to be taken seriously. That's where I got my signature.

It is ultimately a huge challenge and I wouldn't be against the mere idea of attempting it. But you have to have a great reason and a big need for it. And by great reason and big need, I mean more than 'it's like that in the comics.'

I'd say Hulk's lines in TIH were good. They didn't sound weird of anything. I'm not too sure if Hulk had thrown a big speech or had been talking the whole movie. I specially liked the "Leave me alone" line as it came from the dark and it was like it wasn't easy for Hulk to articulate words and sentences but his need to be left alone made him speak. That worked just fine.

Its funny how people will complain about the Hulk speaking but forget about the Abomination talking or the Thing talking in the FF movies. I'm sorry but I want the creature hero's & villains to speak in my marvel movie universe just like their comic book counter parts.

Abomination, as someone else pointed out, was meant to be - and sound - far more intelligent than Hulk. And The Thing is still a man, but deformed, whereas Hulk is first a foremost a monster.

I'm sorry but I want the creature hero's & villains to speak in my marvel movie universe just like their comic book counter parts.

"You can't exactly replicate anything from one form of the media to the other. Things that work perfectly in comics won't work perfectly in movies." (- Stan Lee)

The less they talk, the more they just seem like CG creations.

So if they soliloquized throughout the whole movie they would end up being 100% real.

I guess Peter Jackson's King Kong never worked for you. Looked pure CGI.

 

[terry78]

For things we know that aren't supposed to talk, obviously. Most people know Hulk talks for the most part, even those that are kind ignorant of his stories.