The Avengers The Official 'Hulk in Avengers' thread. - Part 9

[Dark Raven]

Alot of the credit for Ruffalo's stand out performance goes to Whedon for the way he wrote Banner.

This Banner is:

Timid (Like Bixby)
Wreckless/Suicidal (tries to scare an armed Black Widow)
Compassionate (saves indian girl from speeding car and helps sick people)
Clearly a super genius (when he gets to the helicarrier he gets to show boat with techobabble)
Warm and gentle (Ruffalo is like a teddy bear which is the perfect contrast to The Hulk)
Has a shy, nervousness about him (which makes us sympathize with him)

Once you add in a Hulk who has an edgy personality and humor it makes people fully embrace Ruffalo.

Norton mostly played himself and didn't really add many dimensions to the character. It's a shame because his heart was in the right place.

I think you're wrong there. Bill Bixby's Banner wasn't timid. He was in fact very courageous and always put himself in the way of danger and risked his life for others because he simply couldn't stand by and let others get hurt. I'd call that pretty heroic and not timid at all. Everytime he wanted to walk away and not get involved, his inherent nature always kicked in and he had to help. He certainly wasn't shy either. So which bit of him do you see as timid?

 

[Hunter Rider]

You can be timid and a hero though.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I meant timid in the quiet/shy sense, not the fearful/cowardly sense.

 

[DarkJester]

That's because we're comparing his Banner and Hulk to two subpar movies. He did a great job as the Hulk and Banner. Bana and Norton where Meh.... We went form extreme disapointment to wow. Its kind of like Comparing Dragon Ball Z Budokai 1 & 2 to Dragon Ball Z Budokai 3. The first two were crap and the third one was how the first should have been from the begining.

That's cute. TIH is crap now, despite the fact that whenever IT came out people praised it up and down over the 2003 film? Despite the fact that in terms of heart and story it blows IM2 out of the water? Or are we all of a sudden going to defend the IM2 clusterf*** because "No way man, TIH sucks now. Avengers Hulk ftw!"

Only on the Hype, man...

SuperHeroHype: Where there's "no way Heath Ledger could ever pull off the Joker", "totally something in Spider-Man's eye" and now, despite the damn-near WORSHIP the man had pre-Avengers casting, Edward Norton blew it in TIH.

You guys are some silly, finicky, *****es

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't think people worshiped TIH.

They just thought it was an improvement from Ang Lee's Hulk.

But Avengers makes both those films look like amateur hour. Let's not shy away from what The Avengers accomplishes.

 

[Savage]

That's cute. TIH is crap now, despite the fact that whenever IT came out people praised it up and down over the 2003 film? Despite the fact that in terms of heart and story it blows IM2 out of the water? Or are we all of a sudden going to defend the IM2 clusterf*** because "No way man, TIH sucks now. Avengers Hulk ftw!"

Only on the Hype, man...

SuperHeroHype: Where there's "no way Heath Ledger could ever pull off the Joker", "totally something in Spider-Man's eye" and now, despite the damn-near WORSHIP the man had pre-Avengers casting, Edward Norton blew it in TIH.

You guys are some silly, finicky, *****es

QFT!

 

[Roose Bolton]

The thing I've never got was why some consider Norton's Banner so much better than Eric Bana's take? I didn't see anything inherently better from Norton.

 

[irapogi]

Lets be fair. A portion loved tig while a significant portion didnt like it from the get go. This inconsistency alone shows how it was received

 

[DarkJester]

I don't think people worshiped TIH.

They just thought it was an improvement from Ang Lee's Hulk.

But Avengers makes both those films look like amateur hour. Let's not shy away from what The Avengers accomplishes.

But let us not let The Avengers take anything away from the movies that led up to it. I just don't get how quickly everyone is turning on both Norton and TIH when, whenever it came out, the majority felt it was a damn decent flick. Also, the fanboys who *****ed, whined and cried about Norton not being in Avengers, and now they're like "Norton sucked the whole time! Ruffalo4life, lol"

I'm beginning to think all of us Hypers are in some kind of bizarre AU where opinions can change on a dime, with absolutely no logic applied.

Cry about Superman's cape not being he right shade of RED in SR, nothing but praise for the MoS costume which looks NOTHING like classic Superman. Complain that Spidey's lenses look gold sometimes in Raimi's SM, praise Spidey suit that straight-up has gold lenses.

 

[irapogi]

Haha yeah. Fanboys are like sith, they deal in absolutes

 

[Savage]

The thing I've never got was why some consider Norton's Banner so much better than Eric Bana's take? I didn't see anything inherently better from Norton.

Well for one he was actually allowed to emote. We actually got to see fear from this guy and feel for him as his quiet life is ruined once again by soldiers. I was sold on the guy the moment they showed him after the first Hulk out, clutching his stretched out pants with the counter going down to 0. It really was a chase movie and Norton brought that fear and desperation as well as believable intelligence needed for the role. Bana was just kinda...there. Literally. He was instructed to just be there. I thought he was a terrible actor until I saw his other roles. Then I got really confused.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well for one he was actually allowed to emote. We actually got to see fear from this guy and feel for him as his quiet life is ruined once again by soldiers. I was sold on the guy the moment they showed him after the first Hulk out, clutching his stretched out pants with the counter going down to 0. It really was a chase movie and Norton brought that fear and desperation as well as believable intelligence needed for the role. Bana was just kinda...there. Literally. He was instructed to just be there. I thought he was a terrible actor until I saw his other roles. Then I got really confused.

Ok, here's the biggest question: do you feel that Norton totally encapsulates Banner the same way RDJ does Tony Stark, Chris Evans Cap, Mckellen Magneto or Ledger Joker?

 

[DarkJester]

Ok, here's the biggest question: do you feel that Norton totally encapsulates Banner the same way RDJ does Tony Stark, Chris Evans Cap, Mckellen Magneto or Ledger Joker?

I know you aren't asking ME, but in my opinion, no. But neither does Ruff OR Eric Bana in the performances they gave. I'm reserving final judgement on Ruffalo as Banner for if/when he gets to do a stand-alone Hulk film, but from just The Avengers? It literally could've been any other actor in the role.

As for TIH and Norton, Norton did a decent job, but no. Not Banner. He's too much himself and its hard to separate Edward Norton from some of the roles he plays.

 

[Savage]

Ok, here's the biggest question: do you feel that Norton totally encapsulates Banner the same way RDJ does Tony Stark, Chris Evans Cap, Mckellen Magneto or Ledger Joker?

Absolutely. Both 616 and Ultimate.

Norton did not disappoint as the shy, frightened, lonely, heroic, genius. Ruffalo's performance is certainly a great VERSION of Bruce Banner but if I'm going with someone who not only personifies the character but his appearance as well I'm going with Norton. I actually wish he kept the coke bottle glasses on the whole movie. This is a case where Norton playing Norton is as fine as RDJ playing RDJ.

 

[The Guard]

I’m sorry, but I have to agree, this “Ruffalo was SO much better than the previous actors who have played Banner” and “HULK and THE INCREDIBLE HULK sucked" stuff is nonsense.

Ruffalo's performance is nuanced and layered. Very subtle acting. That's what fans appreciate with his Banner. Despite being modest, mild mannered, and shy, there seems to be a dangerous and dont mess with me cause Im the Hulk edge to him as well. He's funny, quirky, mild mannered, but scary and dangerous as well. And a damn convincing scientist. All of that= best Banner. Of course the material given to him was great, but without the right actor, great material would be wasted. I hate over acting and love subtle acting, and that's what Ruffalo brought to the table. I love all the attention and praise he's been gettin. Cause it's well deserved IMO.

There’s nothing terribly nuanced and layered to Ruffalo’s Hulk, because he wasn’t written to be a nuanced and layered character.

All the things you described him as...pretty much apply to Eric Bana and Norton's characters and performances. And no, his performance is not “very subtle”. Not in the least. He plays Banner as broadly as everyone else plays their characters. He’s just a little quieter, because Mark Ruffalo has a particular type of voice, that is quieter.

Previous Banner actors very, very clearly had the “dangerous, don’t mess with me” thing going on. They flat out said (or tried to say) “Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” in various sequences.

This Banner is:

Timid (Like Bixby)
Wreckless/Suicidal (tries to scare an armed Black Widow)
Compassionate (saves indian girl from speeding car and helps sick people)
Clearly a super genius (when he gets to the helicarrier he gets to show boat with techobabble)
Warm and gentle (Ruffalo is like a teddy bear which is the perfect contrast to The Hulk)
Has a shy, nervousness about him (which makes us sympathize with him)

Once you add in a Hulk who has an edgy personality and humor it makes people fully embrace Ruffalo.

"Edgy"?

The two previous Hulk characters and actors (especially Bana’s) had most, if not all, of these elements to varying degrees. They weren’t as “warm”, because they’re not Mark Ruffalo, who is naturally a warm guy. But to suggest that they didn’t come across as somewhat warm and gentle in multiple scenes would be silly.

And...I must have missed where being “warm” is a key part of Bruce Banner’s character in The Avengers comics, or in Hulk comics.

Norton mostly played himself and didn't really add many dimensions to the character. It's a shame because his heart was in the right place.

No, Norton played Bruce Banner. Quite well. What do you mean by “he didn’t add many dimensions” to the character? Norton displayed a range of emotions and motivations in TIH.

Well for one he was actually allowed to emote. We actually got to see fear from this guy and feel for him as his quiet life is ruined once again by soldiers. I was sold on the guy the moment they showed him after the first Hulk out, clutching his stretched out pants with the counter going down to 0. It really was a chase movie and Norton brought that fear and desperation as well as believable intelligence needed for the role. Bana was just kinda...there. Literally. He was instructed to just be there. I thought he was a terrible actor until I saw his other roles. Then I got really confused.

Bana very clearly emoted in HULK. Very clearly. Even as a character who was said to be repressing his emotions. Yes, there were points in the film (mostly early on) where he's more reserved, but if you think he didn't emote, I question if you even watched HULK. He was very much not just “there”. He was fully invested in the role, and motivated everything he did wonderfully. If you really watched HULK and came away thinking Bana is a terrible actor…maybe you’re terrible at assessing acting ability.

I don't think people worshiped TIH. They just thought it was an improvement from Ang Lee's Hulk. But Avengers makes both those films look like amateur hour. Let's not shy away from what The Avengers accomplishes.

It makes those films look like amateur hour in what respect? Action? Having The Avengers in it? Because both the Hulk solo films had a better written Bruce Banner, that was more faithful to the comics, had a more interesting range of conflicts, and who was better developed than he was in THE AVENGERS. And both movies had Hulks that smashed. A lot.

Ok, here's the biggest question: do you feel that Norton totally encapsulates Banner the same way RDJ does Tony Stark, Chris Evans Cap, Mckellen Magneto or Ledger Joker?

I'll second the "Absolutely", in terms of 616 and Ultimates. He was very well cast.

Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark is basically himself.
Ditto Evans’ Cap to some extent.

Ed Norton suited, both visually, personality and actingwise, Bruce Banner about as well as anyone who has ever been cast in a superhero movie.

Ruffalo's take is a new one, which, as Wikipedia says, hasn't been seen since Hulk first appeared (In some comparably relatively poorly written and shallow stories).

The thing about Bruce Banner/The Hulk…they’re probably some of the most revamped, reconceived and therefore undefined characters in comics. Wikipedia says it pretty well:

The core of the Hulk, Bruce Banner has been portrayed differently by different writers, but common themes persist. Banner, a genius, is sarcastic and seemingly very self-assured when he first appears in The Incredible Hulk #1, but is also emotionally withdrawn in most fashions...

...Writers have also refined and changed some aspects of Banner's personality, showing him as emotionally repressed, but capable of deep love for Betty Ross, and for solving problems posed to him. Under the writing of Paul Jenkins, Banner was shown to be a capable fugitive, applying deductive reasoning and observation to figure out the events transpiring around him. On the occasions that Banner has controlled the Hulk's body, he has applied principles of physics to problems and challenges and used deductive reasoning. It was shown after his ability to turn into the Hulk was taken away by the Red Hulk that Banner has been extremely versatile as well as cunning when dealing with the many situations that followed.

This “separating an actor from the role” thing…that only works to a certain extent. I never once really felt like I was watching Bruce Banner during THE AVENGERS. I was watching Mark Ruffalo playing Bruce Banner, and he played it well, but he had the same old Ruffalo mannerisms he always does.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I wouldn't say RDJ encapsulated Stark so much as reinvented and improved on him.

Also, a lot of Norton was lost in the deleted scenes. I encourage anyone who has access to watch those again sometime.

 

[Savage]

Bana very clearly emoted in HULK. Very clearly. Even as a character who was said to be repressing his emotions. Yes, there were points in the film (mostly early on) where he's more reserved, but if you think he didn't emote, I question if you even watched HULK. He was very much not just “there”. He was fully invested in the role, and motivated everything he did wonderfully. If you really watched HULK and came away thinking Bana is a terrible actor…maybe you’re terrible at assessing acting ability.

OR, and get this, I'm a movie viewer and therefor assess based on what is given to me. What I got was the extremes of dry line delivery and over the top anger. There was no middle ground. He'd make a joke and it took me several viewings to realize it was a joke.

"You see, I wear this helmet to protect my very important brain..."

...Was that sarcasm? What was that?

"Very good Betty. And now we're right back here again."

If I can't tell what you're going for right there just by listening to you, if I have to make assumptions based on my own sense of logic (He was being sarcastic in those scenes, right?) then you haven't done your job as an actor particularly well. The guy would swing from emotionally ******ed to constipation faces at the drop of a hat. Without any build up whatsoever. I still cringe listening to his line delivery in every scene except when he's handcuffed with his father. That's the scene that made me go "...Where the hell was this for the rest of the movie?!" I understand what Ang Lee was going for, particularly with him finally releasing those pent up emotions, but I've heard people read menus with more human inflection.

So no. Not being sold on a guy's acting (or in this case the direction) doesn't make me bad at assessing acting. It makes the actor and/or director bad at getting emotions across. Seeing as the rest of the cast did great jobs (Connelly was freakin' awesome.), I was inclined to believe the virtually new Eric Bana just didn't know how to act properly. From this viewer's perspective he was always either severely underacting or severely overacting. His angry poop faces are funny to me.

 

[Slushy]

I'm sorry, but Mark Ruffalo fu**ing sucks! After hearing all the hoopla, I really wanted to give him a chance, but not once did he ever convince me that he was Dr. Banner. His lines came off as cheesy and he looked out of place. Seriously, even Eric Bana was a better Bruce Banner. Now, that may not be a popular opinion, but that's just how I feel. I hope there are other people out there who haven't jumped on the Ruffalo bandwagon.

Also, a lot of Norton was lost in the deleted scenes. I encourage anyone who has access to watch those again sometime.

This. Particularly his fireside chat scene with Doc Samson.

 

[The Guard]

OR, and get this, I'm a movie viewer and therefor assess based on what is given to me. What I got was the extremes of dry line delivery and over the top anger. There was no middle ground. He'd make a joke and it took me several viewings to realize it was a joke.

"You see, I wear this helmet to protect my very important brain..."

...Was that sarcasm? What was that?

"Very good Betty. And now we're right back here again."

If I can't tell what you're going for right there just by listening to you, if I have to make assumptions based on my own sense of logic (He was being sarcastic in those scenes, right?)

He's clearly being sarcastic with those lines. Clearly.

How can you not get that?

You shouldn't have to make assumptions, especially not based on YOUR own sense of logic. Try assessing the performance and context, and noting the OBVIOUS intent and emotion.

then you haven't done your job as an actor particularly well. The guy would swing from emotionally ******ed to constipation faces at the drop of a hat. Without any build up whatsoever.

Examples please.

I still cringe listening to his line delivery in every scene except when he's handcuffed with his father. That's the scene that made me go "...Where the hell was this for the rest of the movie?!"

What are you talking about? Are you serious with "Where the hell was this for the rest of the movie?" Bana's Banner spends a whole movie with his anger building, and it getting harder and harder for him to control. Are you talking about the scene where he is trying to hold in his anger, and it builds under the events of the scene with his father untl he finally screams in anger?

So no. Not being sold on a guy's acting (or in this case the direction) doesn't make me bad at assessing acting. It makes the actor and/or director bad at getting emotions across. Seeing as the rest of the cast did great jobs, I was inclined to believe the virtually new Eric Bana just didn't know how to act properly

If, in HULK, you watch Bana's performance, and you really cannot discern the specific emotions at play, especially in these sequences you mention...then I think you ARE kind of bad at assessing acting.

 

[DarkJester]

I’m sorry, but I have to agree, this “Ruffalo was SO much better than the previous actors who have played Banner” and “HULK and THE INCREDIBLE HULK sucked" stuff is nonsense.



There’s nothing terribly nuanced and layered to Ruffalo’s Hulk, because he wasn’t written to be a nuanced and layered character.

All the things you described him as...pretty much apply to Eric Bana and Norton's characters and performances. And no, his performance is not “very subtle”. Not in the least. He plays Banner as broadly as everyone else plays their characters. He’s just a little quieter, because Mark Ruffalo has a particular type of voice, that is quieter.

Previous Banner actors very, very clearly had the “dangerous, don’t mess with me” thing going on. They flat out said (or tried to say) “Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry” in various sequences.



"Edgy"?

The two previous Hulk characters and actors (especially Bana’s) had most, if not all, of these elements to varying degrees. They weren’t as “warm”, because they’re not Mark Ruffalo, who is naturally a warm guy. But to suggest that they didn’t come across as somewhat warm and gentle in multiple scenes would be silly.

And...I must have missed where being “warm” is a key part of Bruce Banner’s character in The Avengers comics, or in Hulk comics.



No, Norton played Bruce Banner. Quite well. What do you mean by “he didn’t add many dimensions” to the character? Norton displayed a range of emotions and motivations in TIH.



Bana very clearly emoted in HULK. Very clearly. Even as a character who was said to be repressing his emotions. Yes, there were points in the film (mostly early on) where he's more reserved, but if you think he didn't emote, I question if you even watched HULK. He was very much not just “there”. He was fully invested in the role, and motivated everything he did wonderfully. If you really watched HULK and came away thinking Bana is a terrible actor…maybe you’re terrible at assessing acting ability.



It makes those films look like amateur hour in what respect? Action? Having The Avengers in it? Because both the Hulk solo films had a better written Bruce Banner, that was more faithful to the comics, had a more interesting range of conflicts, and who was better developed than he was in THE AVENGERS. And both movies had Hulks that smashed. A lot.



I'll second the "Absolutely", in terms of 616 and Ultimates. He was very well cast.

Robert Downey Jr’s Tony Stark is basically himself.
Ditto Evans’ Cap to some extent.

Ed Norton suited, both visually, personality and actingwise, Bruce Banner about as well as anyone who has ever been cast in a superhero movie.

Ruffalo's take is a new one, which, as Wikipedia says, hasn't been seen since Hulk first appeared (In some comparably relatively poorly written and shallow stories).

The thing about Bruce Banner/The Hulk…they’re probably some of the most revamped, reconceived and therefore undefined characters in comics. Wikipedia says it pretty well:

The core of the Hulk, Bruce Banner has been portrayed differently by different writers, but common themes persist. Banner, a genius, is sarcastic and seemingly very self-assured when he first appears in The Incredible Hulk #1, but is also emotionally withdrawn in most fashions...

...Writers have also refined and changed some aspects of Banner's personality, showing him as emotionally repressed, but capable of deep love for Betty Ross, and for solving problems posed to him. Under the writing of Paul Jenkins, Banner was shown to be a capable fugitive, applying deductive reasoning and observation to figure out the events transpiring around him. On the occasions that Banner has controlled the Hulk's body, he has applied principles of physics to problems and challenges and used deductive reasoning. It was shown after his ability to turn into the Hulk was taken away by the Red Hulk that Banner has been extremely versatile as well as cunning when dealing with the many situations that followed.

This “separating an actor from the role” thing…that only works to a certain extent. I never once really felt like I was watching Bruce Banner during THE AVENGERS. I was watching Mark Ruffalo playing Bruce Banner, and he played it well, but he had the same old Ruffalo mannerisms he always does.

Quoting for truth. My personal inability to not see Norton as "not-Norton" aside (I just own waaay too many Norton flicks), he did a damn fine job and I feel like this sudden outcry against him and TIH is simply ludicrous. Ruffalo did a good job. Norton did a good job (an opinion shared by the majority pre-Avengers). We'll always disagree about who did BETTER, but to completely blow off one performance over the other just because of that is idiotic.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm sorry, but Mark Ruffalo fu**ing sucks! After hearing all the hoopla, I really wanted to give him a chance, but not once did he ever convince me that he was Dr. Banner. His lines came off as cheesy and he looked out of place. Seriously, even Eric Bana was a better Bruce Banner. Now, that may not be a popular opinion, but that's just how I feel. I hope there are other people out there who haven't jumped on the Ruffalo bandwagon.

Definitely not the popular opinion lol

I liked him. He sold 'meek man on the edge' pretty well to me.

imo it's just different takes anyway, like different writers in the books. They all brought their own thing.

 

[The Guard]

Ruffalo's role never required the emotional/motivational demands of Bana and Norton's roles. It was very broadly written. I don't think it's fair to judge overall approach/performances until we see a full film of Ruffalo as Banner, or at least more of him in AVENGERS 2. From what I saw in AVENGERS, Ruffalo's in third place.

 

[Young Superman]

Ok, here's the biggest question: do you feel that Norton totally encapsulates Banner the same way RDJ does Tony Stark, Chris Evans Cap, Mckellen Magneto or Ledger Joker?

Yes I do.

P.S You forgot Christopher Reeve as Superman un your list of actors who encapsulates the characters they played in superhero movies.

 

[Savage]

He's clearly being sarcastic with those lines. Clearly.

How can you not get that?

You shouldn't have to make assumptions, especially not based on YOUR own sense of logic. Try assessing the performance and context, and noting the OBVIOUS intent and emotion.

That's just the thing. It was all context that implied sarcasm. Bana himself wasn't very good at conveying the sarcasm. It was "Yeah, that's a situation to be sarcastic in." Not "Wow, he really got him/her." The lines themselves were sarcastic, the delivery was...I don't know what the delivery was. I'm going to stick with weird. And that's how he was throughout the entire movie for me. Particularly his conversation with his father on the phone before Talbot walks in. Just listening to how little his inflection and face changes makes me cringe. It's like "Are you supposed to be angry here or shocked or...what?"

Examples please.

The above scene with his father on the phone, for one. The entire hulk out scene in that house. The tension came from just about everything else but Bana himself. At that point angry Bana sounded a lot like calm Bana, scrunchy face be damned. The very first hulkout is another one that makes me go "Where'd this come from? I didn't see any buildup to this explosive rage at his computer."

What are you talking about? Are you serious with "Where the hell was this for the rest of the movie?" Bana's Banner spends a whole movie with his anger building, and it getting harder and harder for him to control. Are you talking about the scene where he is trying to hold in his anger, and it builds under the events of the scene with his father untl he finally screams in anger?

That's the scene. Bana was brilliant in that scene. I actually wished we got to see more of that in the movie. Actual noticeable variation in changes of emotion. Especially when he goes from weeping to "Don't touch me!" Until then his Hulk outs felt like "The script calls for me to be angry now. Better start breathing heavily through my nostrils."

If, in HULK, you watch Bana's performance, and you really cannot discern the specific emotions at play, especially in these sequences you mention...then I think you ARE kind of bad at assessing acting.

It was certainly discernible for everybody else. Bana kept this monotonous tone that at times weren't even appropriate for the emotion he was trying to give off. Either he's montonous and dull-faced or he's monotonous and breathing heavily. Only close to the end of the movie does he start acting...relatively human. I got that this was supposed to be his emotional release that was being anticipated throughout the movie but even emotionally unavailable people don't speak like robots. I mean he wasn't Channing Tatum bad by any stretch of the imagination but he was still incredibly distracting at times for me. Like bad line reads that somehow got edited into the movie.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

I thought Norton's Banner was fine and would've worked fine in The Avengers (especially if Whedon was writing his dialogue), but there is nothing wrong with what Ruffalo brought to the role as an older, wiser Bruce Banner who is over this need to "cure" The Hulk and get rid of him. It's right in line with the take on Banner in the Avengers: EMH show where he no longer wants to cure The Hulk but wants him to be a hero.

And if people like Ruffalo's take on the character better than Norton's, so what? What is wrong with that? It's the same thing as people who prefer Bale Batman over Keaton's, or the reverse (Keaton's over Bales), and Connery's Bond over Greg's, or Moores. With characters this iconic and so many actors doing their takes on them, there are bound to be people who prefer one take over another take. It's a perfectly natural part of fandom.