Tim Roth talks UP "The Incredible Hulk"!!!

[Khemik@L]

Well, to be honest, I'm never arguing here. Just more intense than the average person is, I think. I'm sorry if I ever hurt anyone's feelings when I engage in what I think is going to be an intelligent conversation...

Of course you're more intense and will hurt people's feelings. You call yourself "Bannerless Hulk" That means all the rage of hulk but no Banner to calm you down t:! Be careful what you call yourself, you may end up becoming it. (Cool I should probably put that as my next signature).. Anyways, Food for thought

 

[Obi-Ron]

Back on topic, what the sam hill does Tim Roth mean when he says Hulk will be "more like the graphic novels than the comics?" That line just made no sense to me.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Of course you're more intense and will hurt people's feelings. You call yourself "Bannerless Hulk" That means all the rage of hulk but no Banner to calm you down t:! Be careful what you call yourself, you may end up becoming it. (Cool I should probably put that as my next signature).. Anyways, Food for thought

lol I've wondered about that at times. I honestly didn't mean to become my screenname when I arrived upon it a year ago, but as they say, "The road to hell is paved with _ o o _ - _i _ _ e _ _ i o _ _." (a test of skill and wit! see if you can complete the sentence!)

 

[Khemik@L]

lol I've wondered about that at times. I honestly didn't mean to become my screenname when I arrived upon it a year ago, but as they say, "The road to hell is paved with _ o o _ - _i _ _ e _ _ i o _ _." (a test of skill and wit! see if you can complete the sentence!)

Aight I cheated, I googled it. I don't have all that wit and skill. It's "Good Intentions"

 

[ArtTeacher]

Ha, ha... okay I get your drift. Re: the bolded part, let us all understand that it was only "changing the very nature of the character" PER THE COMICS.

Um...yeah...the comics...the medium in which the character debuted...and is most widely known for. Add up every Hulk appearance outside of the comics and it adds up to quite the minority compared to the 46 years of Hulk comics.

Or your perception of the Hulk, per the comics.

MY perception is that the Hulk wouldn't strangle Betty.
The fact is the Hulk has never strangled Betty anywhere else than in Ang Lee's movie.

And I would probably go on to say that they didn't change his nature at all.

And, hey, that's cool. And I wouldn't, that's all.

Bruce still willingly released his grip from Betty's neck.

Great. He shoudn't have had his hands around her neck in the first place.

He was just confused.

No, I think confused would be, "Why are soldiers attacking Hulk?" The Hulk just wants to be left alone...he's minding his own business and gets a tank shell in the back of the head. That's the "WTF?" to the Hulk.
"Accidentally" choking your girlfriend isn't confusion.

If you're going to say Ang & Co. changed his nature, then I think you've some obligation to prove that they really changed the Hulk's bent or inclination toward being confused... which is a part of the Hulk, is it not?

Again, the Hulk is confused as to why he gets attacked unprovoked...not "Oh, my bad! I thought I was choking a 'Hulk-Dog' not the love of my life. Whoopsie!"

The Hulk goes on being misunderstood - which is probably more the thing that you didn't like

I don't mind the Hulk being misunderstood; it's a great dramatic element in his comic. People look at the Hulk, assume he's going to harm them (based on his looks or what they've heard), flee from him, and the army attacks; he's misunderstood. In trying to take his cousin to the hospital for a bursting appendix, he's viewed by his peers as trying to abduct an innocent woman. THAT'S being misunderstood. Seeing the hero of a tale choke the heroine is not misunderstanding or confusion. It's just plain bad.
If you liked the scene or think it was the most true to the Hulk, that's fine. I'm not on a crusade to change everyone's mind. I just disagree, that's all.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Back on topic, what the sam hill does Tim Roth mean when he says Hulk will be "more like the graphic novels than the comics?" That line just made no sense to me.

Just saw this... I have no idea what he's referring to with the term "graphic novels," since I didn't know that graphic novels of the Hulk existed. I just assumed he meant there'd be more subtance/texture to the Hulk in terms of his appearance, since the question was asking whether or not the Hulk would be CG and whether he'd resemble Ang's Hulk (which wasn't very graphic, but rather was a large green man, as some people say).

Aight I cheated, I googled it. I don't have all that wit and skill. It's "Good Intentions"

Ding ding ding!! What do we have for him, Johnny?

A newwwwwwww car!!!


[cue The Price is Right theme. lol]

Um...yeah...the comics...the medium in which the character debuted...and is most widely known for. Add up every Hulk appearance outside of the comics and it adds up to quite the minority compared to the 46 years of Hulk comics.

Can't argue with that. The comics shape your opinion and Ang took a wrong turn I guess.

No, I think confused would be, "Why are soldiers attacking Hulk?" The Hulk just wants to be left alone...he's minding his own business and gets a tank shell in the back of the head. That's the "WTF?" to the Hulk. "Accidentally" choking your girlfriend isn't confusion.

No, but it's his first prolonged Hulk-out and in real life, if you're Bruce, don't you allow for even the tiniest bit of confusion as to who/what your surroundings are? Seriously ArtTeacher. What do you think Ang Lee was going for in that scene if not confusion? That Bruce really IS a killer, a villain, etc? How do you explain that scene from their point of view in a way that doesn't insult the comics or movie-goers?

Again, the Hulk is confused as to why he gets attacked unprovoked...not "Oh, my bad! I thought I was choking a 'Hulk-Dog' not the love of my life. Whoopsie!"

Ha ha... very funny.

I don't mind the Hulk being misunderstood; it's a great dramatic element in his comic. People look at the Hulk, assume he's going to harm them (based on his looks or what they've heard), flee from him, and the army attacks; he's misunderstood. In trying to take his cousin to the hospital for a bursting appendix, he's viewed by his peers as trying to abduct an innocent woman. THAT'S being misunderstood. Seeing the hero of a tale choke the heroine is not misunderstanding or confusion. It's just plain bad. If you liked the scene or think it was the most true to the Hulk, that's fine. I'm not on a crusade to change everyone's mind. I just disagree, that's all.

Again, can't really argue with that. But I come back to the fact that no one really knows the psychological underpinnings of Banner's mind or what such a mind would look like if a real-life Hulk existed. To you, it doesn't make sense that Banner would strangle Betty, the love of his life, the heroine, etc... but I insist that it made sense from Ang Lee's perspective, namely that the Hulk's confusion wouldn't merely be confined to tanks firing at him and whatnot. His whole concept of reality would be skewed, and to me, it just doesn't seem too far-fetched to think that he'd go at whatever was immediately in front of him, even if it's Betty. In that scene, you can even see in Bana's acting that he's in his own world... he's still playing out the fight sequences in his mind. He's not even entirely cognizant that it's Betty, and in that case, you're right - he shouldn't and, in fact, doesn't go at Betty.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Seriously?

That tiny thing is what people are arguing about?

Yep, it lasts all of 10 seconds, though i can understand why others dont like it.

...yeah...you know...that tiny little thing that changes the hero of the movie into...you know...someone that strangles "the only person that can calm the Hulk down".


"Hey, Bill, people are mad after hearing that in the next Superman movie, Superman rapes Lois."
Seriously? That tiny thing is what people are arguing about?

It didnt change the hero IMO, made him look more vulnerable, or human if you like. He had just been in a mad fit of rage for a long time as the Hulk, and the mention of his father and what he had tried to do sent him into another rage, were he grabs the nearest thing to him, but watch his face when Betty cry's out, he realises what he is doing at immediatly stops. So in my eyes, it doesnt change the character at all. Other things in the movie deviate from the comics far more than this scene.

 

[Prefix]

...yeah...you know...that tiny little thing that changes the hero of the movie into...you know...someone that strangles "the only person that can calm the Hulk down".

But he didn't actually strangle her, did he? In fact, as soon as Betty showed fear, he stopped. It was obviously a reflex due to the adrenaline of the fight. Betty calmed the Hulk down, because she WASN'T strangled. I don't like the 2003 movie either, but i'm not going to make up problems with it like you are doing.

"Hey, Bill, people are mad after hearing that in the next Superman movie, Superman rapes Lois."
Seriously? That tiny thing is what people are arguing about?

Right, so Bruce ALMOST attacking Betty but reconsidering as soon as Betty shows fear is EXACTLY the same as rape.

 

[chamber-music]

Roths Hulk is up against his buddy Oldmans Batman

 

[Obi-Ron]

When Bruce Hulks out, Hulkgasm or not, he doesn't lose control and start attacking Betty, Jim Wilson, etc.

Okay this is my new favorite word.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Tim Roth was, for many years, my top choice to play The Joker. You guys are lucky to get him as The Abomination. One of my top reasons to see this movie. t: