Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]382165[/split]
I don't think there was any reason to think that at the time. Ang Lee's Hulk didn't do too well but TIH was Marvel's chance to do something on their own, with one of their most popular characters.Anyone else think marvel should have just held off on releasing a hulk film until after the avengers?
Riding off the success of the avengers the incredible hulk would have been guaranteed a larger following than it did in real life.
After 2 failed hulk movies though the time is likely too late.
One could theoretically could say that about all the films. I dont think holding off would have been a good idea at all. The next Hulk film will benefit off riding off The Avengers successBruce Malone said:Anyone else think marvel should have just held off on releasing a hulk film until after the avengers?
Riding off the success of the avengers the incredible hulk would have been guaranteed a larger following than it did in real life.
I thought Norton's Banner was incredibly boring.
One could theoretically could say that about all the films. I dont think holding off would have been a good idea at all. The next Hulk film will benefit off riding off The Avengers success
I rewatched Thor on Saturday and I liked it better than the first time but I was reminded what I didnt like at bout it and it was that there wasnt enough action. Thor spends the bulk of it powerless and we dont get a big action sequence till the end (not counting the one in the beginning).^ Very true, I can't wait to see how big of a boost Thor get's with THOR II next year.
I heard several kids and even a middle aged woman say "I wanna be Thor" and I was like "Whaa? Are you sure didn't mean Hulk?"
^ Very true, I can't wait to see how big of a boost Thor get's with THOR II next year.
I heard several kids and even a middle aged woman say "I wanna be Thor" and I was like "Whaa? Are you sure didn't mean Hulk?"
I rewatched Thor on Saturday and I liked it better than the first time but I was reminded what I didnt like at bout it and it was that there wasnt enough action. Thor spends the bulk of it powerless and we dont get a big action sequence till the end (not counting the one in the beginning).
Seeing how action packed Avengers was, Im hoping Thor 2 will be especially since he has his powers and I dont expect to see him lose them
Very interested to seeing Ruffalo when he inevitable is the lead of his own film. Wasnt really that intersted in Hulk till now
This movie works as an ensemble piece and is really well balanced, but who is the hardest character to write for?
Hulk. And not in terms of the voice, necessarily, so much as the structure. Whats going to make this guy Hulk out? When is that good? When is that bad? How do you toe the line with villain, being a monster and hero? And make it all play in the same movie. Its a thing that has plagued the Hulk movies, and even getting the animators to understand what I was going for well I had to go and talk to them [laughs]. Which was fascinating to me, because afterwards they were like, This is great! Nobody ever comes and tells us about stuff! And Im like, What? Are you kidding? You guys are creating one of the most important characters! And they so got it after we talked a while and I thought they did such a beautiful job and Mark did such a beautiful job. So I feel very proprietary about how that went and Im really proud of it because it really was tough.
I personally thought the Hulk was the best part of the movie and the real standout. And you kind of touched on this, but in contrast, what do you think it was about the previous Hulk movies that got it wrong?
Well, for me, again, youre dealing with this monster and they treat them like superhero movies, but the problem is, when they do that theyre doing that with a hero who thinks hes in a monster movie. So what you get is a man whose only obsession is to stop you from paying to see the thing you paid to see. And thats a real problem! And then you put him in a possibly convenient situations with the worst people in the world every time he turns into the Hulk, and one of the things that was exciting for me was to have him transforming in a dark room next to the Black Widow, because thats not okay! Hes actually mad at her! [laughs] And you want to say, yeah, theres a reason why he doesnt want to let this out and you want to feel it because you dont want her to be dead.
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Avengers-Director-Joss-Whedon-Doing-Right-By-Hulk-30758.html
I remember when Norton was cast my initial reaction was
YES!!
Seeing him do split personality roles so masterfully in Fight Club and Primal Fear I thought "wow this guy is going to be a perfect Bruce Banner"
After seeing the movie I was basically
Norton should have inhabitated the role like Fassbender did with Magneto or RDJ did with Tony Stark.
He was really no better than Bana in my opinion.
I think they were strong at different aspects, which fits the character development. I feel much more compassion for Norton's banner and the situation he's in. Ruffalo's banner is more likable as a person, as he isn't particularly tormented, and plays up different aspects.Agreed. Ruffalo's Banner (not Hulk) was fun, intense, intimitating, intimidated (when dodging stuff on the helicarrier), genius-level intelligent...
Norton was.............. none of the above (imo).
Thor spends the bulk of it powerless and we dont get a big action sequence till the end (not counting the one in the beginning).
Mjölnir;23180571 said:I just remembered that Hulk smashing Loki was something I've thought about with super strong people for a long time. When no one has done that I've taken it as part of the concept but now that Hulk grabbed Loki and smashed him around, you have to wonder why not all strong characters fight like that fairly often. Even Iron Man is strong enough to do that to a regular sized person.
i felt norton on paper was a good idea, after all he did so well in fight club. However when he played banner, he seemed like he didnt wanna be there like he was just going through the motions. It was a good movie, but not great. The director louis was a bad pick, and it suffered from other casting and writing flaws imo.
The avengers however spot on! Ruffalo is perfect, because he captured that warm quality we loved from bixby. However he also injected his own to it also, ruffalo was inspired casting. The man even looks like the hulk, which worked when he was hulk. Also the way he used some guerilla movements, made alot of sense with hulk. The one thing i would have liked to see translated over from tih, is the green eyes and the green veins. Otherwise the avengers hulk transformation was perfect, painful and a slight of horror to it. I love how everyone was on edge around banner, and when widow was trapt next to him she was so scared he was gonna change.
I remember when Norton was cast my initial reaction was
YES!!
Seeing him do split personality roles so masterfully in Fight Club and Primal Fear I thought "wow this guy is going to be a perfect Bruce Banner"
After seeing the movie I was basically
Norton should have inhabitated the role like Fassbender did with Magneto or RDJ did with Tony Stark.
He was really no better than Bana in my opinion.
Agreed. Ruffalo's Banner (not Hulk) was fun, intense, intimitating, intimidated (when dodging stuff on the helicarrier), genius-level intelligent...
Norton was.............. none of the above (imo).
Agreed. Ruffalo's Banner (not Hulk) was fun, intense, intimitating, intimidated (when dodging stuff on the helicarrier), genius-level intelligent...
Norton was.............. none of the above (imo).