Which Hulk Is Stronger? (2008 or 2003)

[Lexar128]

no, YOU are going by the limits marvel gave the characters, I'm going by what I saw in the films without any outside bias of what i 'should' know. I'm comparing extracts of the films based on their merits alone.

Again, based on pre-known knowledge and nothing in the films. You don't even need to watch the films to make those statements, you're missing the point of the reason of the comparison

Comic hulk has no limit, there is nothing that states in either of these two films that both these characters don't have an upper limit to their strength. You are doing it again, using comic knowledge to describe a film character.

The easiest way to get this through is by looking at spidey. If you kept going on about spidey in spidey 2 having webshootes when the movieverse has organics, then you'd see the merry go round I'm on. You have to stick to what is seen or said or shown in the films.

You can't make up logic based on what is said in the comic books or any other form of medium.

Edit:

capitalised YOU is there only to highlight a point, this post was made in a calm reasonable fashion with no aggro

You can say the same about Hulk's healing factor....Spiderman's webshooters wasn't deviating from the character too much. I went into the movie knowing Hulk had unlimited strength.....i left knowing that the Hulk had unlimited strength because that's what I know from the comics. If we aren't using the comics as a reference.....than what was Ang Lee and LL doing? Going by what they saw? If you wanna do that, TIH should have been killed after the helicopter crash. (isn't that how he died in the TV show version?)

 

[ArtTeacher]

I don't believe he did.

Betty says that physical pain/damage is finite, while emotional trauma/damage can be infinite, meaning the Hulk's rage/strength is limitless.

 

[November Rain]

You can say whatever you want. The point still remains that the film featured a character that has no superhuman strength and the film stayed true to that. If the film showed Wolverine lifting the Washington monument, then what would your argument be? That the comic book Wolverine "does have superhuman strength, too, but has never had a form of expressing it in the comic"?

Aright, we'll play it your way

Since you are using the comics as more of a reference point than the films and both hulk characters originate from the same origin, therefore your view must mean its impossible for one to be stronger than the other and you have complete neutrality in this conversation (since anypoint brought forward for one can be used for the other).

Which ultimately brings up the question, why post in a thread to which you are neutral about its outcome?

unless of course you aren't neutral which doesn't make sense what so ever.

 

[ArtTeacher]

Aright, we'll play it your way

Since you are using the comics as more of a reference point than the films and both hulk characters originate from the same origin, therefore your view must mean its impossible for one to be stronger than the other and you have complete neutrality in this conversation (since anypoint brought forward for one can be used for the other).

Which ultimately brings up the question, why post in a thread to which you are neutral about its outcome?

unless of course you aren't neutral which doesn't make sense what so ever.

One side is saying 2003 is stronger.
One side is saying 2008 is stronger.
I'm saying they're...both...the...Hulk. Neither have a limit to their strength.

 

[redlion2]

It doesnt matter what the script says, we didnt see it, and Hulk did take tank shells directly when he was on the Dune's.

I'll admit my memory may be a little faulty, I've only seen TIH once, last Fri. I'm going again tonite so it'll be fresher on my mind.

 

[Lexar128]

Aright, we'll play it your way

Since you are using the comics as more of a reference point than the films and both hulk characters originate from the same origin, therefore your view must mean its impossible for one to be stronger than the other and you have complete neutrality in this conversation (since anypoint brought forward for one can be used for the other).

Which ultimately brings up the question, why post in a thread to which you are neutral about its outcome?

unless of course you aren't neutral which doesn't make sense what so ever.

I post in this thread because I don't wanna see any variation of the Hulk being made out to be "weak" when that isn't the case in the least.

 

[Lexar128]

One side is saying 2003 is stronger.
One side is saying 2008 is stronger.
I'm saying they're...both...the...Hulk. Neither have a limit to their strength.

I'm with you.

 

[ArtTeacher]

Using that ridiculous logic, we didn't see Betty lift the Humvee Thunderbolt Ross was driving in order to save Banner, we didn't see her do it, so that doesn't neccessarily mean she isn't capable.

That’s not ridiculous logic, that’s your ridiculous application of that logic.
We didn’t see Betty lift the Humvee because she can’t lift the Humveee.
Lexar128 was saying he can lift 200 pounds, but since you didn’t see him do it, applying your logic, then that means he cannot.

This logic doesn't work either because a 5-year old and Arnold Schwarzenegger aren't both the Hulk.

True. But I thought it would be even more ridiculous to say, “Comparing two videos of Arnold Schwarzenegger, in video 1 he is lifting 250 pounds and in video 2 he is sleeping, so that can only mean that the Arnold in video 1 is far stronger than the Arnold in video 2,” since they are the same person. But, then again, as silly as that sounds, that is EXACTLY what is being debated here.

“Hey, who’s stronger, Clark Kent or Clark Kent?”
“Well, I think Clark Kent is stronger!”
“No, you idiot, Clark Kent is!”

Let’s start the “Official” Spider-Man in Spider-Man 1 is stronger than Spider-Man in Spider-Man 3 thread.

And even so in the comparison between ripping a car apart which is put together mechanically by hand with weak points to structure, etc. I still find the visceral and terrifying enraged feat of ripping a dog apart to be alot more entertaining and incredible for lack of a better word. Pun, intended.

Perhaps this is where we differ, as I find the very idea of including a gamma-irradiated poodle in a Hulk movie absolutely abhorrent.

 

[FrostBite]

One side is saying 2003 is stronger.
One side is saying 2008 is stronger.
I'm saying they're...both...the...Hulk. Neither have a limit to their strength.

Thank you ArtTeacher, this is such a pointless debate. Just because something is not shown doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hey everyone, I didn't see Betty's naughty bits in 03 OR 08, does anyone have a sneaking suspicion she could be a transvestite?

 

[ant3ros]

Now that you brought it up, which Betty looks more like a woman?

 

[ArtTeacher]

Thank you ArtTeacher, this is such a pointless debate. Just because something is not shown doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Hey everyone, I didn't see Betty's naughty bits in 03 OR 08, does anyone have a sneaking suspicion she should be a transvestite?

LOL!!!!
Well, Frostbite, the problem is, you're going by your comic book knowledge that Betty has genitals. This is movie Betty, so we can't assume that she has genitals, we don't know for sure if she can lift a tank or not, and we don't know if she's even human!
How dare you assume that Louis Leterrier wanted to make Betty Ross a human female with genitals! Why, that's preposterous!!!

 

[Kirmit]

One side is saying 2003 is stronger.
One side is saying 2008 is stronger.
I'm saying they're...both...the...Hulk. Neither have a limit to their strength.

I was blind but now I see, ArtTeacher is the voice of logic .

 

[November Rain]

You can say the same about Hulk's healing factor....Spiderman's webshooters wasn't deviating from the character too much. I went into the movie knowing Hulk had unlimited strength.....i left knowing that the Hulk had unlimited strength because that's what I know from the comics. If we aren't using the comics as a reference.....than what was Ang Lee and LL doing? Going by what they saw? If you wanna do that, TIH should have been killed after the helicopter crash. (isn't that how he died in the TV show version?)

Alright, i think i've established something critical here.

it seems when you go to the cinema to watch these films, you go to see the comic book on the big screen, you go with pre-existing knowledge either wanting to watch a particular comic come to life or follow on from comic book knowledge without much background info.

I treat every single adaptation of anything i see as brand new fair game and i forget (or leave at home) all pre-existing knowledge and i view the film for what it is, the messages it had, its narrative and how i felt it made connection with me based on its own merits. Then, i compare so even though things may differ if it worked in the film, then fine. However if something's not stated in the film, then i see no reason why it should exist in that universe. if something isn't shown, there is no way of proving or disproving it's possible, all we can go on is what we are shown, we can't bring outside knowledge into it.

I guess that's our differences. I see a two films based with their own artistic licence based around the same character, you see two hulk comic book translations films.

 

[FrostBite]

Now that you brought it up, which Betty looks more like a woman?

Well I think they both.. do?

But you never know, surgeries are getting better each year. Betty could obviously be a transvestite it just fits logic don't you know.

And it's not shown, but Thunderbolt used to be a male model.

 

[Lexar128]

Alright, i think i've established something critical here.

it seems when you go to the cinema to watch these films, you go to see the comic book on the big screen, you go with pre-existing knowledge either wanting to watch a particular comic come to life or follow on from comic book knowledge without much background info.

I treat every single adaptation of anything i see as brand new fair game and i forget (or leave at home) all pre-existing knowledge and i view the film for what it is, the messages it had, its narrative and how i felt it made connection with me based on its own merits. Then, i compare so even though things may differ if it worked in the film, then fine. However if something's not stated in the film, then i see no reason why it should exist in that universe. if something isn't shown, there is no way of proving or disproving it's possible, all we can go on is what we are shown, we can't bring outside knowledge into it.

I guess that's our differences. I see a two films based with their own artistic licence based around the same character, you see two hulk comic book translations films.

100% agree with you. You nailed it my friend. It's just different ways of how we watch these types of movies.

 

[ArtTeacher]

100% agree with you. You nailed it my friend. It's just different ways of how we watch these types of movies.

*cues the song, "Kumbaya"*

Finally, we can all live in peace.

 

[Lexar128]

*cues the song, "Kumbaya"*

Finally, we can all live in peace.

LMAO....you guys are A-Holes!

 

[ant3ros]

Well I think they both.. do?

But you never know, surgeries are getting better each year. Betty could obviously be a transvestite it just fits logic don't you know.

And it's not shown, but Thunderbolt used to be a male model.

Haha, I was making a point about the fallacy of the original thread question. It has all the same problems as that question.

 

[November Rain]

One side is saying 2003 is stronger.
One side is saying 2008 is stronger.
I'm saying they're...both...the...Hulk. Neither have a limit to their strength.

But why is the assumption of treating them as the same character hold any merit? They are set in different universes and may have limits thrust upon them (especially 08 since nothing is stated about his power range).

I mean ultimately 616 hulk and ultimate hulk are in way different power ranges from one another but they are both 'the strongest ones there is' and both get stronger as they get madder, yet there strengths aren't comparable based on feats and factsheets. Ultimate avengers hulk has a different strength level as well, not to mention 60s animated hulk and 90s tas hulk animation.

sure we could all tie it up in a bow and denounce them as teh same based on 'stronger/madder'....but where's the fun in that?

 

[November Rain]

100% agree with you. You nailed it my friend. It's just different ways of how we watch these types of movies.

I can't debate with your bias ways.

I need some vulcans to talk to dammit

 

[ant3ros]

By why is the assumption of treating them as the same character hold any merit. They are set in different universes and may have limits thrust upon them (especially 08 since nothing is stated about his power range).

I mean ultimately 616 hulk and ultimate hulk are in way different power ranges from one another but they are both 'the strongest ones there is' and both get stronger as they get madder, yet there strengths aren't comparable based on feats and factsheets. Ultimate avengers hulk has a different strength level as well, not to mention 60s animated hulk and 90s tas hulk animation.

sure we could all tie it up in a bow and denounce them as teh same based on 'stronger/madder'....but where's the fun in that?

Which diverts the question to which Hulk is more temperamental thereby tapping into his unlimited power.

Hulk 08 is clearly the more anger prone. He's savage to the point of murderous. It's only Betty that he is marginally calmer or you could say it anger was redirected.

Hulk 03 was basely calm. You could see it in the majority of their expressions.

 

[November Rain]

yeah 08 is more savage but that savageness doesn't necessarily manifest itself directly well with regards to strength. I mean he went all out on a barage against the abomination, and he shrugged it off, kicked him and the hulk was down for a good while (long enough to gain a decent sized lead if the abomination was concentrated on him).

I mean at his most pissed in the movie, he still wasn't able to knock out abomination cold and reverted to asphysxiation (sp?) to which he was still crawling about afterwards...

 

[redlion2]

I believe 08 Hulk is stronger b/c at their base strength, 03 isn't able to split the gammasphere. He's not even able to press it. He struggles to get it on his shoulder and has to set it back down.

 

[ArtTeacher]

Which diverts the question to which Hulk is more temperamental thereby tapping into his unlimited power. Hulk 08 is clearly the more anger prone. He's savage to the point of murderous. It's only Betty that he is marginally calmer or you could say it anger was redirected. Hulk 03 was basely calm. You could see it in the majority of their expressions.

ant3ros for the win!

Congrats!

I mean he went all out on a barage against the abomination, and he shrugged it off, kicked him and the hulk was down for a good while

Which just shows you how much more powerful Abomination is than a giant poodle or a big jellyfish cloud/dad/electicity guy/absorbing-type man.

 

[redlion2]

ant3ros for the win!

Congrats!



Which just shows you how much more powerful Abomination is than a giant poodle or a big jellyfish cloud/dad/electicity guy/absorbing-type man.

Exactly!