Which Hulk LOOKED better to you?

[Hmarrs]

So because we said that the Norton version looks better we must be lying? ****.




Bana version looked like a cartoon character, Nortons' did not.

No. it's just that alot of Hulk fans are so angry at the Ang lee film that everything is tainted for them from being bias and objective.

Also dude .I hope **** doesn't mean what I think it does,because if it does you show your ignorance with your inability to communicate therefore you result to vulgarity for your lack of ability to express yourself.

Why not?

My reasons are above.

 

[DACMAN]

No. it's just that alot of Hulk fans are so angry at the Ang lee film that everything is tainted for them from being bias and objective.

Also dude .I hope **** doesn't mean what I think it does,because if it does you show your ignorance with your inability to communicate therefore you result to vulgarity for your lack of ability to express yourself.





My reasons are above.

So you're still saying that we all agree with you, it's just that we're too bias and tainted? And once we do away with our bias ways, we'll all agree with you...


Or could it be that we actually just disagree with you.

I mean really. Who taught you to agrue like this? "All people actually agree with you, they just don't know it."

 

[Hmarrs]

So you're still saying that we all agree with you, it's just that we're too bias and tainted? And once we do away with our bias ways, we'll all agree with you...


Or could it be that we actually just disagree with you.

I mean really. Who taught you to agrue like this? "All people actually agree with you, they just don't know it."

I like your last line.

I mean really. Who taught you to agrue like this? "All people actually agree with you, they just don't know it."

I thought that was funny.

Okay let's try this again.First off in my first statement I said "I think"no one will ever admit it.
The Key word there is "I THINK" I never said "I KNOW".These types of responses are exactly the types of responses I'm talking about.I't just seems to me that it is so very hard for many people on these threads to be objective.I still feel by reading these posts that alot of people are bias because of how much they hated Ang Lee's Hulk.Now if they generally disagree from an objective stand point .Then so be it.

 

[Xclaim]

Norton Hulk. Not only was he much more vicious and intimidating, but they got his size right (Norton's 9ft Hulk as opposed to Bana's 15ft Hulk) Hulk's supposed to be huge, but he's not a freakin giant.

 

[RogueDK]

Bana Hulk looked lifelike but soft and cuddly respectively but Norton Hulk look like the Hulk should look...

...like a bonafide A**-KICKER!

Norton Hulk for me.

 

[Ziggyman]

3 pages...87 votes...

And still no picture comparison...!

 

[Obi-Ron]

Wait till the dvd comes out...

 

[zanos]

There really isn't a comparison. Ang's hulk looks almost like gumby on steroids.

 

[picassomnx88]

I liked norton hulk.
but i have to admit, bana hulk actually did look like bana had turned into the hulk. i think thats why they gave bruce banner a scar in the new one.

 

[picassomnx88]

3 pages...87 votes...

And still no picture comparison...!

 

[picassomnx88]

Bana Hulk (compared to norton hulk)- Bad Haircut.
- Fluorescent Green Does not Help.
- Should have left the purple shorts for the comics.
- Looks like he uses moisturizer and got a baby face.

Otherwise its pretty good....

 

[The Guardian]

TIH ALL THE WAY!!!

 

[Sarg92]

Very nice comparison pics.

May I ask where you got the TIH pics from cos they are good quality and some of those pics weren't released such as Hulk in the cave.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Nice. Seeing them side-by-side strengthens my original point; Norton's Hulk had better detailing, but Bana's looked more imposing & blended better.

 

[dcHulk]

Wow those pics are awesome. Seeing them side-by-side proves to me that R&H went beyond ILM. And Ang's Hulk still has some of the best CG to date. I have to say, I am impressed with the look of the Norton Hulk. I recall one of the first things my wife said about TiH movie: the Hulk looks real.

 

[RogueDK]

Oh yeah, TIH really looks Bada$$ by comparison! I never understood why so many bashed the CGI on him. It looks fantastic.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Norton's Hulk.

 

[Chris Wallace]

I can't believe Ferrigno actually got a vote!

 

[Sarg92]

My only complaint about Leterrier's & Norton's Hulk is that they had the eyes glowing a bright green. I know Leterrier chose that to show he is angry so when he gets angrier his eyes light up for a couple of seconds, Leterrier called it "gamma fire" but the brightness of the eye colour made Hulk look somewhat fake, less believeable than he would with normal green shaded eyes.

 

[The Man of Steel]

Norton's Hulk with out a doubt

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

Norton's Hulk was better designed (keown/buscema-ish) and better detailed.

Ang Lee's Hulk was more Kirby/trimpe inspired lookswise and had softer details, however it was more photorealistic.

He may have looked like rubber in some scenes but he looked like REAL rubber.

 

[November Rain]

lous was better in stills, ang's was better in motion.

 

[Chris Wallace]

Interesting argument, November Rain.

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

lous was better in stills, ang's was better in motion.

EXACTLY.
I blame a rushed production.

 

[November Rain]

Interesting argument, November Rain.

It's quite clear the new hulk didn't look nearly as impressive doing his feats on teh screen.

ang's flowed better, reacted better to his environment, was more flexible, showed more muscle strain and variation, and had more human traits. his weight shift during running and dodging and throwing large objects were very convincing. His hand movement while jumping and the way he absorbed energy with his legs on impact were better modelled.

however in a still picture, the new hulk does have the tendency to look more hulk like which is fine, I can accept that but we arent talking about a bunch of stills, we are talking about fluid animation and what fools the eye better. Ang's accomplishes this much much better. It looks better in motion.

EXACTLY.
I blame a rushed production

Well the truth will be to see what improvements they have in the dvd with the ability to jazz it up.

personally, I just don't think they were up to the job. Again, they probably fooled the board with their stills, but their animation techniques were nothing groundbreaking. ang's hulk cgi holds up to this day with its Fluidity of motion. It's five years old, no five year old film should be able to do this which show the workmanship they put in.

as bad as anyone would like to say, you ask fans on this site for their top 10 movie scenes and I bet more people will include the desert fight from the first one rather than the abomination fight at the end of this one.