Tim Roth is Emil Blonsky/Abomination in The Incredible Hulk!

[Prefix]

ok ,a guy in a spandex suit vs a giant fish monster. you do the math on which would come out better

I'd put my money on the giant fish monster, because people in spandex costumes have a tendency to look funny and monsters have been done well on film time and time again.

 

[Beanjuice]

I'd put my money on the giant fish monster, because people in spandex costumes have a tendency to look funny and monsters have been done well on film time and time again.

whatever you say

 

[The Joker_1000]

I'd put my money on the giant fish monster, because people in spandex costumes have a tendency to look funny and monsters have been done well on film time and time again.

 

[Venomfan]

well i saw the korean movie The Host, and that was as fishy of a monster as you can get, and it didn't turn out looking ridiculous. And nothing is fishy about Abomination anyway? I guess i can see how his ears in some incarnations look like a fishes fin, but everything else just looks like a monster.

i can't wait to see how they do the Leader, since the way he looks makes no sense according to LL's logic

 

[The Joker_1000]

His cranium is too big but all they could do is scale it down just a bit so it looks a bit more believable. They don't need to make the Leader look more imposing as he's not truly a fighter, he's more of a brainiac.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

His cranium is too big but all they could do is scale it down just a bit so it looks a bit more believable. They don't need to make the Leader look more imposing as he's not truly a fighter, he's more of a brainiac.

But then there would have to be a character that is Leader's brawn. Of course they could go with Bruce trying to fight controling the specter of the grey Hulk Leader seems to be able to surface from within his psyche.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

well i saw the korean movie The Host, and that was as fishy of a monster as you can get, and it didn't turn out looking ridiculous. And nothing is fishy about Abomination anyway? I guess i can see how his ears in some incarnations look like a fishes fin, but everything else just looks like a monster.
i can't wait to see how they do the Leader, since the way he looks makes no sense according to LL's logic

Abom's original design would have worked fine, and no matter what anyone says, this new design is no more logical than Abom's comics design. The excuse LL came up with for his 're-design' was absolute ******** IMO.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Be thankful he's not a cloud. Or a giant jellyfish.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Be thankful he's not a cloud. Or a giant jellyfish.

But the cloud and giant jellyfish were only on screen for a moment, 1 minute, possibly 2 at the most. Abom will be on screen for around 30 mins i believe.

 

[The Joker_1000]

That's just great (no sarcasm). I'm glad the Abomination will be getting a good amount of screentime but for some reason now I'm more hyped to see the Hulk than the Abomination but a few weeks ago it was the other way around.

 

[Knightsaber Priss]

But the cloud and giant jellyfish were only on screen for a moment, 1 minute, possibly 2 at the most. Abom will be on screen for around 30 mins i believe.

That's still alot better than being a cloud or a giant jellyfish with limited screen time.

 

[The Joker_1000]

Anything's better than the mushroom cloud we got in the first movie.

 

[Gamma Ra]

well i saw the korean movie The Host, and that was as fishy of a monster as you can get, and it didn't turn out looking ridiculous. And nothing is fishy about Abomination anyway? I guess i can see how his ears in some incarnations look like a fishes fin, but everything else just looks like a monster.

i can't wait to see how they do the Leader, since the way he looks makes no sense according to LL's logic

People that are claiming that the comic book version of the Abomination will look ridiculous on screen, are just making ridiculous claims. A CGI creature will only look as good as the artist or artists that conceive him.

 

[Spade]

It's not an issue of "whether it looks good or not;" I'm sure Rhythm and Hues could have created an awesome reptilian Abomination. It's that this movie isn't meant solely for the comic book crowd, in the same way that the last film should not have been a pure drama. One needs to strike a balance between two different expectations. Folks who have no clue what Blonsky turns into or what his role in the mythos is are going to ask how he suddenly turns into a reptilian monster and the Hulk doesn't.

 

[Shivsguy616]

Lol, I forgot about your sig

 

[Prefix]

It's not an issue of "whether it looks good or not;" I'm sure Rhythm and Hues could have created an awesome reptilian Abomination. It's that this movie isn't meant solely for the comic book crowd, in the same way that the last film should not have been a pure drama. One needs to strike a balance between two different expectations. Folks who have no clue what Blonsky turns into or what his role in the mythos is are going to ask how he suddenly turns into a reptilian monster and the Hulk doesn't.

1. Audiences aren't going to leave the theater because he looks like the comic book version.
2. It hasn't hard to come up with an explanation for why he looks the way he does, you also don't have to explain it.
3. This new design is just as inexplicable and out there as the comic book design, and the ignorant masses will ask the same questions.

 

[Shivsguy616]

1. Audiences aren't going to leave the theater because he looks like the comic book version.
2. It hasn't hard to come up with an explanation for why he looks the way he does, you also don't have to explain it.
3. This new design is just as inexplicable and out there as the comic book design, and the ignorant masses will ask the same questions.

1. Correct.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong.

 

[Prefix]

1. Correct.

Glad you agree!

2. Wrong.

Why? It requires very little explanation, and there are several of those. The explanation for the design we have now is easily transferable to the comic book version.

3. Wrong.

So people aren't going to wonder why the Abomination has elbow swords and the Hulk doesn't? That is much worse than fin-ears and scales.

 

[FrostBite]

Glad you agree!
Why? It requires very little explanation, and there are several of those. The explanation for the design we have now is easily transferable to the comic book version.
So people aren't going to wonder why the Abomination has elbow swords and the Hulk doesn't? That is much worse than fin-ears and scales.

It may be inexplicable but man elbow swords is just cool.

 

[Prefix]

It may be inexplicable but man elbow swords is just cool.

This reasoning is exactly why audiences wouldn't mind the comic book Abomination.

 

[Spade]

1. Audiences aren't going to leave the theater because he looks like the comic book version.

Did I say they would? No. I said that people would be confused. That has nothing to do with keeping butts in seats. It's just not good storytelling. When you establish an in-movie logic, there has to be consistency. You can't just say "this is what it is" and then say "now here's something that flies in the face of that."

2. It hasn't hard to come up with an explanation for why he looks the way he does, you also don't have to explain it.

"It isn't hard." Furthermore, it is a little difficult to explain. The script's explanation of Banner's transformation relies on a lot of pseudoscience as it is. Even if you say some throwback genes in our DNA allow the Abomination to regress back to those reptilian elements in our early evolutionary process, there isn't much explanation that could be given as to why this would occur in the Abomination and not in the Hulk.

On a final note, you usually keep things mysterious when the explanation is self-evident or mythical in nature. When you're directly dealing with science, you're going to have to expect logical questions to crop up.

3. This new design is just as inexplicable and out there as the comic book design, and the ignorant masses will ask the same questions.

It's a compromise. It may be one that you're apparently willing to spit in the face of, but it's a compromise nonetheless. A genuine mystery element is the Super-Soldier Serum; we don't know how this would react with the Hulk's origin elements, and the willy-nilly nature of the injections seems to be screwing around with Blonsky's anatomy way before he makes things worse with his transformation. Since we know in the comics that the Super-Soldier Serum in one dosage can enhance musculature and whatnot, it's not a far cry to say that abuse of the serum could lead to the body growing abnormally. This happens in cases of steroid abuse all the time. In this case, Blonsky seems to have his spine and skin mutated; seeing as how he's injected there, it's not surprising that his body shows signs there first.

The fact that it wasn't just mainlined into him via some IV is where my use of the word "compromise" kicks in. The spine probably didn't have to be accentuated as it was, and his skeleton didn't need to go out of control. As a matter of fact, the hair didn't have to disappear, his skin didn't have to go transparent, and he could have been the same height as the Hulk. That these were done insinuates that the crew at least tried to keep in line with Betty's original claim in the comics- that Blonsky had turned himself into some unholy abomination of the natural human form. You may not like it- heck, I'm not a fan of the look- but they tried within the confines of modern society's view on the improbable and the believable.

 

[Prefix]

Did I say they would? No. I said that people would be confused. That has nothing to do with keeping butts in seats. It's just not good storytelling. When you establish an in-movie logic, there has to be consistency. You can't just say "this is what it is" and then say "now here's something that flies in the face of that."

It happened in Spider-Man 3. The way the symbiote acted on Peter was different to the way it acted on Eddie.

"It isn't hard." Furthermore, it is a little difficult to explain. The script's explanation of Banner's transformation relies on a lot of pseudoscience as it is. Even if you say some throwback genes in our DNA allow the Abomination to regress back to those reptilian elements in our early evolutionary process, there isn't much explanation that could be given as to why this would occur in the Abomination and not in the Hulk.

On a final note, you usually keep things mysterious when the explanation is self-evident or mythical in nature. When you're directly dealing with science, you're going to have to expect logical questions to crop up.

Oh really, then could you please explain why you have delivered a perfectly good explanation for the comic book design right here:

It's a compromise. It may be one that you're apparently willing to spit in the face of, but it's a compromise nonetheless. A genuine mystery element is the Super-Soldier Serum; we don't know how this would react with the Hulk's origin elements, and the willy-nilly nature of the injections seems to be screwing around with Blonsky's anatomy way before he makes things worse with his transformation. Since we know in the comics that the Super-Soldier Serum in one dosage can enhance musculature and whatnot, it's not a far cry to say that abuse of the serum could lead to the body growing abnormally. This happens in cases of steroid abuse all the time. In this case, Blonsky seems to have his spine and skin mutated; seeing as how he's injected there, it's not surprising that his body shows signs there first.

The fact that it wasn't just mainlined into him via some IV is where my use of the word "compromise" kicks in. The spine probably didn't have to be accentuated as it was, and his skeleton didn't need to go out of control. As a matter of fact, the hair didn't have to disappear, his skin didn't have to go transparent, and he could have been the same height as the Hulk. That these were done insinuates that the crew at least tried to keep in line with Betty's original claim in the comics- that Blonsky had turned himself into some unholy abomination of the natural human form. You may not like it- heck, I'm not a fan of the look- but they tried within the confines of modern society's view on the improbable and the believable.

So, by your explanation, the way the serum was injected into Blonsky affected the mutation. If his skin can go transparent, why can't it go scaley? If his spine can stick out and grow frills, why can't his ears?

Sorry to say this, but you've just helped me prove my own argument.

 

[cerealkiller182]

I totally agree Abom doesnt need explanation or could be easily explained but i dont think its a big deal he got changed. I'll always prefer the comic style though to appear in the movie.

My biggest problem with the Abom design is all the extra effects added. Translucent skin or whatever it is, elbow swords. I'd rather just see two green beasts plummel each other with punches.

 

[Gamma Ra]

It's not an issue of "whether it looks good or not;" I'm sure Rhythm and Hues could have created an awesome reptilian Abomination. It's that this movie isn't meant solely for the comic book crowd, in the same way that the last film should not have been a pure drama. One needs to strike a balance between two different expectations. Folks who have no clue what Blonsky turns into or what his role in the mythos is are going to ask how he suddenly turns into a reptilian monster and the Hulk doesn't.

I think that the look has everything to do with it. That's the only reason I like the new design cause to me it looks good, it's like an abomination.

I'm pretty sure the majority of the posters on this board realize that the comic fan is in the minority amongst movie goers, even when dealing with a comic book character. But by your same logic, the average movie goer not knowing what Blonksky looks like, why would they care if he looked like he does in the comic? What proof do we have that it would be received any different from the new version?

 

[Spade]

It happened in Spider-Man 3. The way the symbiote acted on Peter was different to the way it acted on Eddie.

I have strong feelings on the...logic, or lake thereof, in Spider-Man 3. But that's material for another thread.

So, by your explanation, the way the serum was injected into Blonsky affected the mutation. If his skin can go transparent, why can't it go scaley? If his spine can stick out and grow frills, why can't his ears?

Sorry to say this, but you've just helped me prove my own argument.

How so? If your skin does not develop properly, there are cases in which the insides are visible. This has been documented in medical research, occasionally occuring as an abnormality found in newborns. Skin can be rendered transparent when such an abnormality occurs. It's just that normal human beings develop with more than enough skin to be considered opaque at the very most. What's not documented research is literal scales (not skin flaking, but literal scales as there are in the comics) appearing due to an abnormality of the natural human body. Unless you want to involve herpetology, which would render Blonsky a non-factor for most of the film as the Super-Soldier Serum dosages are what make him a threat throughout. It makes more sense that the expanse that is human skin would grow at a different pace, especially when the x-factor we're talking about deals with a serum akin to a steroid.

As for "why can't his ears," any guess is as good as my own. I would have been happy if he had floppy ears that referenced the old Abomination. Still, seeing the current Snake-Eyes issue in the upcoming G.I. Joe movie, I'm sure there would still be comic fans that would be anal-retentive about even that and ask why it's floppy ears and not fins.