TIH vs. Ang Lee's Hulk

[co2]

I know some people are clowning on the 2003 hulk's cgi now but for its time i think it was a lot more impressive than what TIH came out with in 2008.

Agreed. The technology may not have been where it needed to be at the time, but it was impressive for 2002-2003. Maybe they should have waited, but I think the tech is there now.

 

[The Guard]

Because it was fun, exhilarating and entertaining.

There are plenty of moments in both HULK and INCREDIBLE HULK that are fun and exhilirating, or at least, should be to fans.

I think people are dazzled because he fought aliens and picked up a really big alien snake thing.

I don't get the whole "Hulk in HULK isn't a good version of The Hulk" and bashing of THE INCREDIBLE HULK. They're not perfect films, but HULK, while being somewhat plodding in places, is a very well made movie that really did get to the core of Banner's issues, and THE INCREDIBLE HULK was more or less the next logical step. Both movies have sequences of great, unique action.

Though I prefer the work in INCREDIBEL and AVENGERS, I really think the CGI in HULK still looks quite good. He looks the way he does for a reason. His skin doesn't look human and has that "rubbery" almost glowing look for a reason.

 

[Daybreak_st]

Neither film was good. And only after The Avengers does that become abundantly clear. So TA wins by default.

As for these two, both didn't work for different reasons. Ang Lee's 2003 film has much better acting and characterization/development of all the principals (save for Talbot) and some haunting imagery and music by Danny Elfman. However, in terms of a story, the plotting--especially the third act finale--are terrible and the pacing is deader than Bruce's mother. And visually the Hulk looked like a cartoon character which was not helped by the distracting editing and completely muddled ending.

The Incredible Hulk has (slightly) better CGI and a director who really gets into a lot of action that by itself is pretty visually exciting and coherent (unlike the 2003 movie). However, the story backing that up is a thinly developed formula superhero movie with barely developed, cartoonish characters who are played by a group of great actors who almost all look very bored.

In one scene in The Avengers, when Banner meets Black Widow and they test each other, Ruffalo and Whedon already surpassed all other characterizations of him. His interactions with Tony Stark and Cap only helped this further, his function in the plot was well thought out and (for the most part) developed. And as for the Hulk action scenes? I don't think I have to say why they were better in this movie.

You pretty much summed up my feelings except for one thing. I just watched the Incredible Hulk again last night for the first time in years and was utterly unimpressed with the CGI.

Comparing it now to the Ang Lee Hulk, ILM did a much better job imho. The goals were clearly different. In the Hulk they were trying for a mix between the comic and realism. They tried to make him look somewhat like Bana, and the anatomy was going for what the comic hulk could look like in real life. His facial expressions and actions were more subtle almost melancholy. They pushed the green way too far however and I think that was the biggest offender. He was just way to bright and stood out b/c of it. But animation wise and especially facial expressions, they did a very solid job of making him feel real. Even his skin textures (not color) were well done. He felt like he actually occupied real space. I would love to see what a color corrected version of him looked like, ie modify the green to a more subtle/less bright green.

Now in The Incredible Hulk I think their mandate was simply make it look as much like the comic book as possible. They veered toward the popular 90s over muscled, veins popping, angry hulk (most comic characters of the 90s fit this description). He was thinner to match Norton, but otherwise there was little to no correlation between the actor and the Hulk. I don't think they even tried to make them look similar in the face though I haven't watched the making of to be sure. The Hulk was no longer subtle or melancholy. Everything about his actions were big and exaggerated. While this enhanced the action of the film it also never read as "real" to me. He looked like a caricature on the screen, just a giant monster. The effects on Abomination actually looked better. Overall the cgi reminded me of movies like Van Helsing or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He never felt like he occupied actual space in the scenes like he did in The Hulk. Perhaps this is more b/c of animation though b/c production stills look better than actual scenes in the film. Though they did nail the right color for him.

I my opinion ILM (who also did the effects on the Avengers) have probably always wanted another shot at getting the Hulk just right (they are the top VFX house out there). It seems like the physique was similar to Ang Lee's but improved. Also the technique of matching the actor and more subtle emotions was all evident. The Avengers hulk was a phenomenal achievement. But I think the groundwork was laid back in 2003 with their first try at The Hulk. While the story arc/character setup was from The Incredible Hulk. My two cents.

 

[Daybreak_st]

There are plenty of moments in both HULK and INCREDIBLE HULK that are fun and exhilirating, or at least, should be to fans.

I think people are dazzled because he fought aliens and picked up a really big alien snake thing.

I don't get the whole "Hulk in HULK isn't a good version of The Hulk" and bashing of THE INCREDIBLE HULK. They're not perfect films, but HULK, while being somewhat plodding in places, is a very well made movie that really did get to the core of Banner's issues, and THE INCREDIBLE HULK was more or less the next logical step. Both movies have sequences of great, unique action.

Though I prefer the work in INCREDIBEL and AVENGERS, I really think the CGI in HULK still looks quite good. He looks the way he does for a reason. His skin doesn't look human and has that "rubbery" almost glowing look for a reason.

Great points. I feel like Avengers finally gave Hulk something worthwhile to do and a reason to fight. Each film has evolved the character somewhat. The ending of Incredible was great in that Banner finally descides to "aim" the Hulk at something and saves the day. In the Hulk it was his first time turning so fighting the military etc made sense, but that is only interesting to watch for so long. Finally with Avengers he's exerting even more control over the Hulk (which makes sense b/c he's been dealing with this for years now), he's able to fight something worthwhile and really cut loose/have some fun while doing it. That is awesome. He's perfectly position for another film at this point. I would love if they follow up with Samuel Sterns from Incredible (he was the most enjoyable person to watch in that film). He's now the Leader and Bruce/Hulk has to find a way to stop him. But also use the chance to highlight how Banner is now using the Hulk and how his ideology conflicts/complements the Leader. Something like that would allow for solid character growth in a natural direction and lots of worthwhile action that doesn't involve Hulk vs Military for the millionth time.

 

[Daybreak_st]

And I thought Sam Elliott made a better Ross.

Sam Elliott was infinitely better as Ross in Hulk. I really didn't care for the actor's portrayal in Incredible. He was bland and boring. Elliott was gruff but enjoyable to watch and felt more authentic. The other guy felt like he was trying too hard.

 

[DACrowe]

There are plenty of moments in both HULK and INCREDIBLE HULK that are fun and exhilirating, or at least, should be to fans.

I think people are dazzled because he fought aliens and picked up a really big alien snake thing.

I don't get the whole "Hulk in HULK isn't a good version of The Hulk" and bashing of THE INCREDIBLE HULK. They're not perfect films, but HULK, while being somewhat plodding in places, is a very well made movie that really did get to the core of Banner's issues, and THE INCREDIBLE HULK was more or less the next logical step. Both movies have sequences of great, unique action.

Though I prefer the work in INCREDIBEL and AVENGERS, I really think the CGI in HULK still looks quite good. He looks the way he does for a reason. His skin doesn't look human and has that "rubbery" almost glowing look for a reason.

It may just be personal taste, but I thought the action in Ang Lee's Hulk (other than the 45 seconds of him beating up those tanks and coming out of the ground in San Francisco) was just boring. It didn't help the CGI was incredibly fake looking. But most of all, the imagery of him fighting giant poodles, beyond being silly, was only outdone by the still-confusing ending where his dad turns into a giant bubble. The movie had things that worked for it (Bana, Connolly, Elliot and Nolte were all great and I liked them better than their 2008 counterparts), but the action scenes were a mess. On top of that, the pacing moved at a snails pace and was honestly a very dry movie that wasn't good enough in terms of quality to take itself that seriously, IMO.

The action in TIH was much better visualized, shot and edited than the stuff in Ang Lee's movie, but I just didn't care about the characters. While I was interested in most of them in the 2003 movie, they were all cardboard cutouts in TIH. As I didn't care about them, I didn't care about what was happening.

In The Avengers, Ruffalo makes me in his first scene like him better than Bana or Norton ever did. And his final action scenes were exciting because I cared about what was happening and the Hulk looked great doing it. Seeing him hop around Midtown like that was stunning, fun and interesting because I was invested in the story.

 

[TheBlueMcCoy82]

I've been a comic book reader for 19 years, and a Hulk fan for almost 10 years.

I've been a Hulk fan ever since 2002, after I picked up "Hulk: The End" one day while browsing in a comic book shop. After I read that book, I started reading Hulk monthly and began collecting back issues written by Peter David.

I'm not really a debater or arguer so hopefully this doesn't lead to that, but I wanted to give my opinion on both movies, as well as tell my stories of attending both movies on opening night.

I remember going into our local theater in 2003, the night "HULK" opened, and seeing the theater decorated in a Hulk theme. They had mini-posters of the movie and even had an employee dressed up as Hulk (In a white shredded shirt look lol). The line was real long to get in and I remember the theater being packed. During the movie, I remember a man who wore a Hulk shirt, slumping over half way through the movie and began to snore. lol. Walking out of the theater that night, I remember looking at people's faces and reactions and seeing nothing but disappointment. Some faces had looked like they had just woke up from a long sleep. It was very disappointing for me, and I feel for the majority of the fans.

A few years later, I go to North Richland Hills' theater in the Dallas area to see "THE INCREDIBLE HULK" opening night. I remember seeing this HUGE statue of Hulk in the theater lobby that was roped off. There were quite a few people lined up to see the movie. When the Hulk starts fighting the military in the campus scene, I remember the audience really started getting into the movie. I also remember claps and and exciting "ooos!" coming from the audience during the ending brawl scene. When the audience walked out of the theater that night, their reactions were much more positive than they were back in 2003. I could briefly hear the excitement in some people's voices as they talked about the last scene and that they couldn't wait to see Hulk in The Avengers. I walked out feeling like I finally got a movie where Hulk got to kick some butt.

So a few weeks ago, to get ready for The Avengers, I pop in the "HULK" and "THE INCREDIBLE HULK" blu-rays and watch them back-to-back. Ang Lee's was a struggle to get through. The annoying theme, the Hulk's size, The Hulk dogs and the lame comic panels when people were killed, really made this movie unenjoyable. I feel if maybe about 20-30 minutes were trimmed, it would help the film's pacing a lot. There were some parts that really made the movie drag.

I put in TIH afterwards, and from the beginning credits I was drawn in. The story was much much more interesting. I like the addition of the pulse and thought Norton pulled off Banner much better than Bana. The campus scene was exciting, fun and awesome to watch. The ending scene was even better. I turned it off and enjoyed it. The only minor nitpicks I have with it still is I think some of the CGI in some scenes are very cheesy looking and I really wish they would have used Abomination's original comic book look/design. Other than that, I still love this movie. I think if this had been the first Hulk movie, instead of Ang Lee's Hulk, we would still have a Hulk franchise going strong ala X-Men and Spider-man. I think Ang Lee's movie really put a bad taste in people's mouths, which is what I think really lead to this movie not doing so well at the box office.

So yeah, TIH definately gets my vote as the best Hulk movie out of the two. After TIH and Avengers, I really hope Marvel has another Hulk movie planned. Now that they have finally got Hulk right, he needs another movie to show he is truly Marvel's second biggest icon (after Spider-man.).

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree with everything, but personally, I don't think Hulk is Marvel's second biggest icon, or even third. Maybe fourth or fifth.

I said before the Avengers that this Hulk is going to be the best, and he was.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

In The Avengers, Ruffalo makes me in his first scene like him better than Bana or Norton ever did. And his final action scenes were exciting because I cared about what was happening and the Hulk looked great doing it. Seeing him hop around Midtown like that was stunning, fun and interesting because I was invested in the story.

I agree. When he first snaps at Black Widow and his reaction to her with the gun was better than any acting scene with Bana or Norton.

 

[CConn]

I agree with everything, but personally, I don't think Hulk is Marvel's second biggest icon, or even third. Maybe fourth or fifth.

I said before the Avengers that this Hulk is going to be the best, and he was.

For some reason though, the Hulk is tremendously popular among the general audience.

I kinda think it might purely be from all of our parents' found memories of Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno. Either way, I would agree that Spider-Man, Wolverine and him are the three big draws for Marvel among the GA.

 

[metaphysician]

Generally speaking, the most popular and well known characters amongst the GA are "anybody who has actual exposure in a movie or non-animated TV series."

 

[CConn]

Kinda.

But if that were the case, Wonder Woman would be in the same boat as the Hulk, yet she's not. There's just something about his character people love.

 

[metaphysician]

I blame her relative lack of a coherent concept. There's a lot of accumulated cruft that has never really been refined to a coherent whole. Whereas the Hulk has a fairly straightforward and elegant premise.

 

[CConn]

Really?

Because the Hulk has changed way more than Wonder Woman has. He's gone from grey, to green, from dumb to smart, to dumb again. He's constantly been at flux with his character. Hell, right now in the comics, the Hulk and Bruce Banner are two totally different people.

Wonder Woman has always had the same concept her entire history. Just a lot of writers try to make her hip and fresh and in doing so, miss he point completely.

 

[metaphysician]

Yeah, the Hulk has a lot of variations, but they all "fit" reasonably well. It doesn't take much effort to see how they all emerge from the same character. And except for very rare cases, they are all just fairly minor variations on the basic Jekyll/Hyde premise.

Whereas Wonder Woman has mythology, she has Nazis, she has 70s empowerment, she has the bizarre bits of campy high tech. . . and more importantly, no one has taken all the disparate elements, and written a successful defining story that melds them all together so that you can say "This is Wonder Woman." Yes, Perez, but sadly Perez' take hasn't managed to remain any more relevant than anyone else', which is why people always end up referring back to Linda Carter.

 

[CConn]

Like, every one of her stories have had all of those aspects that you listed.

Minus the WW2 stuff...just because it's, Y'know, not 1944 anymore.

 

[DACrowe]

So, I watched Hulk (2003) for the first time last night in at least six years (probably more). My thoughts on seeing it again:

I actually appreciated it more now. It's still a bloody mess of a film, but after being pummeled with superhero formula for the last nine years, it was nice to see something that tried to be different. Honestly, Ang Lee attempted to do with Hulk what Nolan did with Batman in Batman Begins. But, whereas Nolan succeeded gloriously, Lee failed. I can see a good movie in there, it just needed a better screenplay and better editing. The acting is phenomenal. Especially Connelly, Sam Elliot and Nick Nolte who are just great. The first two of which did much better than their 2008-rebooted counterparts. Also, the score by Danny Elfman is just haunting. That main theme is so tragic and so perfect for the Hulk, it's too bad the movie flopped so hard that Marvel would never reuse it. And when scenes work (like Hulk's hopscotching through the dessert and fighting tanks, or Betty "finding" Bruce), they really work. But the pace does not work for this kind of movie. It's too muted. It's too bland. I actually really like it exploring the effect of anger, trauma and repression. It goes places that we'll never see again with the character. However, some of those places are terrible like Hulk dogs and the still astronomically terrible ending with Bubble-Dad.

So, ultimately the movie is a failure. But a very interesting one that I honestly do prefer to the 2008 film. I'd love to see a new take with Ruffalo as the character.

 

[CConn]

I agree with that assessment entirely.

 

[metaphysician]

As do I.

 

[co2]

Make that three.

I still like and appreciate 2003 for being so different, but it is a bit of a mess at times.

2008 at least captured more what GA and Hulk fans wanted, so I would have to say that I prefer it.

And you are very correct about the actors that played the Ross'. Much better in '03.

 

[CConn]

Connelly, I think, honestly gave the most underrated performance ever in a comic book movie.

She was really pitch perfect.

 

[Roose Bolton]

That scene where she calls her father in tears was great, she really did seem genuinely terrified of Bruce throughout this movie. Connelly was a much better Betty than Liv Tyler, by leaps and bounds.

 

[CConn]

Comic book cutaways aside (even though I personally liked them), even the cinematography in the film was gorgeous. Great framing, color palate, etc.

 

[Boom]

I think HULK gets a bad rap. Could the design of The Hulk have been better? Yes. Was the final battle lacking? Sure.

But it's a very well-made film, and if truth be told, I prefer it in large to The Incredible Hulk.

 

[DACrowe]

That scene where she calls her father in tears was great, she really did seem genuinely terrified of Bruce throughout this movie. Connelly was a much better Betty than Liv Tyler, by leaps and bounds.

Liv Tyler is a solid actress and William Hurt is a great actress, but they really just stood there and played the "girlfriend" and "antagonistic father-in-law" type characters. Sam Elliot and Jennifer Connelly (who is a great actress) did so much more with the roles. They felt human. Ang Lee made her more than a girlfriend, but a really well-developed character. The scene where she talks to her father at the end on the phone is just great.