Which Hulk LOOKED better to you?

[Sarg92]

AmazinUncleBen, ArcBlade, Banshee, bapi, Buttman, Chris Wallace, donez510, envybianchi, F91, giacomo1725, Hmarrs, honest george, HULKSTER'04, Hurm..., Jackasscoley15, James L Howlett, Kent, marcvader, Matthew Allison, Merkel, Mig-El, Mr. Credible, Nathan, Neto Magnus, November Rain, portland2002, Sava, Scooter, Shivsguy616




Everyone listed here is either crazy or a liar.

Nope.

It is just their opinion. They prefer Ang's Hulk, Ang's and LL's or the TV Show Hulk and that is okay. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[November Rain]

AmazinUncleBen, ArcBlade, Banshee, bapi, Buttman, Chris Wallace, donez510, envybianchi, F91, giacomo1725, Hmarrs, honest george, HULKSTER'04, Hurm..., Jackasscoley15, James L Howlett, Kent, marcvader, Matthew Allison, Merkel, Mig-El, Mr. Credible, Nathan, Neto Magnus, November Rain, portland2002, Sava, Scooter, Shivsguy616




Everyone listed here is either crazy or a liar.

In film, looks purely aren't about design, it's about animation and interaction with their surroundings.

tih looks better in stills but it is in no way better animated than ilm, it never fools the eye and it's movements are no where near as realistic.

there's no video segment that rivals anything in the desert sequence. There's no motion that is translated better, there's no action the hulk performs than ang's doesn't better.

we can sit here comparing stills all day long but if you look in threads about the top ten best scenes in a marvel film, ang's hulk ranks and this one doesn't so...

put that in your pipe and smoke it

 

[Cracker Jack]

AmazinUncleBen, ArcBlade, Banshee, bapi, Buttman, Chris Wallace, donez510, envybianchi, F91, giacomo1725, Hmarrs, honest george, HULKSTER'04, Hurm..., Jackasscoley15, James L Howlett, Kent, marcvader, Matthew Allison, Merkel, Mig-El, Mr. Credible, Nathan, Neto Magnus, November Rain, portland2002, Sava, Scooter, Shivsguy616




Everyone listed here is either crazy or a liar.

Hey! How come I'm not of that list? It's a known fact that I am crazy

 

[jack283137]

can someone post some more caps?

 

[Chris Wallace]

AmazinUncleBen, ArcBlade, Banshee, bapi, Buttman, Chris Wallace, donez510, envybianchi, F91, giacomo1725, Hmarrs, honest george, HULKSTER'04, Hurm..., Jackasscoley15, James L Howlett, Kent, marcvader, Matthew Allison, Merkel, Mig-El, Mr. Credible, Nathan, Neto Magnus, November Rain, portland2002, Sava, Scooter, Shivsguy616




Everyone listed here is either crazy or a liar.

That's extreme. It's their opinion.
That's like saying I'm crazy or a liar because I think Chrisette Michele is better looking than Beyonce.
Which I do.

 

[mjbull23]

Hands down preferred the look of TIH to that of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk. The 2003 version's face looked "off" somehow. Not menacing enough.

 

[El Payaso]

DACMAN




Everyone listed here is either intolerant or wrong. Or both.

 

[Gmanofsteel]

Bana's hulk was a joke. It looked like a giant, chubby cheeked toddler. The new Hulk looked much better

 

[Chris Wallace]

I only found him baby-like in his first scene. He didn't even come off angry-more scared & confused.

 

[co2]

Does anyone here have Hulk '03 on Blu-ray? How does it look?

I bought a high-def TV and Bu-ray player a few weeks ago (mainly in preparation for The Dark Knight. Those IMAX scenes will simply knock you on your rear!) I have The Incredible Hulk on Blu-Ray and the detail is amazing. However, more detail can sometimes detract from how realistic it looks. Out of curiosity I took my DVD of Hulk and popped it in. Because of the HDMI connection, the Blu-ray player will upconvert even your DVD movies to almost high-def quality. Well, I was stunned! It looked incredible...and again, this was the DVD! The scene where Hulk leans into the camera to growl at Talbot looks like you could reach out and touch him. It honestly looks more realistic than my Blu-Ray of TIH. I can only imagine what the Blu-Ray version of Hulk looks like! It really makes it hard to understand why people slandered the animation so much in this film.
So my question is how good does the Blu-Ray version of this film look, and are there any features not on the original DVD that are on the Blu-Ray? i told myself that I wouldn't fall into the trap of upgrading my library, but for this one I might make an exception.

 

[Obi-Ron]

co2, I started a blu-ray thread over in the Hulk 03 forum, you might want to ask that question over there.

 

[co2]

I'll do that, but unfortunately nobody visits that forum.

 

[Obi-Ron]

So I've noticed.

 

[Kellys Heroes]

design:I don't like either ones Body Design. 2008 looks to thin while 2003 looks fat... if you combined them you would have the perfect Hulk.
CGI wise, both stunk. 2008 looked like a Plastic toy while 2003 looked like a piece of Clay.

2008's facial movements were much better, 2008's looked much more pissed and fearsome, 2003 looks like a confusioned 2 year old. Maybe thats what Ang was going for since 2003 was when the Hulk is 1st born and is new to the world while 2008's Hulk has been around for atleast a couple of years.

Body Movements: 2003 by far was better. The Hulk's Running, Jumping, Landing, & transfer of weight when picking up and throwing stuff was so much better and life like in 2003. In 2008, it was like the movement of the Hulk was an after thought after the story, character development, and design. That was a huge Mistake made by the 2008 team.

Strength: what did the 2008 Hulk do that was impressive? Really Nothing, he kicked Tim Roth... big deal. Even Admination wasn't that strong; I was disappointed by the final fight, seriously... he gets choked out?
2003 showed us something, Hulk rips tanks apart and toss them in the air. He destoried that under Military Plant... 2003's Hulk was much closer to what we see in the comics as far as strength. 2008 was a little closer to the 70's TV show which I think was the piont; however most of us want the comic Hulk.

 

[bullets]

Strength: what did the 2008 Hulk do that was impressive? Really Nothing, he kicked Tim Roth... big deal. Even Admination wasn't that strong; I was disappointed by the final fight, seriously... he gets choked out?

What?? You should rewatch the film .

 

[Compi716]

Strength: what did the 2008 Hulk do that was impressive? Really Nothing, he kicked Tim Roth... big deal. Even Admination wasn't that strong; I was disappointed by the final fight, seriously... he gets choked out?

He RIPPED. A. CAR. IN. HALF. AND. USED. IT. AS. BOXING. GLOVES.

I think that's pretty impressive. Plus he smashed up the street by pounding on it. That's something.

 

[RogueDK]

He RIPPED. A. CAR. IN. HALF. AND. USED. IT. AS. BOXING. GLOVES.

I think that's pretty impressive. Plus he smashed up the street by pounding on it. That's something.

Don't forget that he also overcame those two powerful sonic wave guns. Perhaps arguably overlooked but it can't be ignored.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

Norton Hulk is much better.

1. He has a much more believable sense of weight to him
2. His face looks much more authentically 'Hulk'
3. He was the same size everytime he appeared
4. He looked and felt like he meant business, as opposed to Bana's which always seemed like more of a frightened child lashing out at the world.

 

[Kellys Heroes]

He RIPPED. A. CAR. IN. HALF. AND. USED. IT. AS. BOXING. GLOVES.

I think that's pretty impressive. Plus he smashed up the street by pounding on it. That's something.

2003 toss a Tank into the Sun and Ripped another in half, 2003 was much stronger. Don't get me wrong, 2008 wasn't chop liver... but he wasn't Hulkish either.

 

[JAK®]

2003 Hulk was a far better CGI creation. He looked real, simple as.

2008 Hulk looked more like the comic book Hulk, but the CGI just simply wasn't good enough. Such a shame.

 

[elgaz]

I don't think there's any competition at all. Compare the realism in the picture here (an outdoor shot in bright light) -

... to the one here, in a similar setting.

I know it's only 2 examples, but they're indicative to me of both movies. I thought Ed Norton's Hulk looked tighter, meaner, fitter, more realistic in terms of how a humanoid with hugely exaggerated muscle mass would actually move and look.

Ang Lee's Hulk - especially with his constantly changing size - looked less ripped and less consistent in comparison. I've never liked the shade of green they used on him either, much too bright and makes him look a lot more cartoony - the darker shades in Norton's Hulk look more photorealistic and add to his menacing nature. In that second pic, the purple shorts on Lee's Hulk look like they've been photoshopped on as an afterthought.

 

[JAK®]

^
One picture has the Hulk in dim light and the other has Hulk with light shining directly on him. Also, they are both promotional images and not stills from the film.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Both are movie stills.

 

[Kellys Heroes]

2008 didn't have Nick Nolte... man, his scenes were awesome in 2003's version.

 

[JAK®]

Both are movie stills.

They both resembles scenes from the movie, but they are actually promotional stills that have been altered and enhanced in Photoshop.