Who was the better villain? Tim Roth or Nick Nolte?

[Mr. Joker]

To me, Nolte wasn't that bad of a villain in the '03 movie, but his character shouldn't have become the Absorbing Man, plain & simple. But my vote goes to Roth, I loved his performance all the way through.

 

[Scooter]

Nolte, easily. Roth was boring.

 

[Mr. Joker]

I didn't find either particularly boring, but I thought Roth had a more solid performance.

 

[Chewy]

Roth was badass. Nolte neared Ahnold-in-B&R terrible with his scene chewing.

 

[Mr. Joker]

I thought he was exceptionally good in the role...the only thing about Nolte's performance that annoyed me was the whisper talk. Actually, I hate hearing whisper talk in nearly all movies.

 

[Obi-Ron]

A good thread, and a tough call. For me it came down to what was added to the character for the sake of the movie...and while I did like David Banner's added history with Thunderbolt Ross, I didn't like the fact that they gave him powers and changed his name. Tim Roth's Emil Blonsky, I thought, seemed fairly true to what little we knew from the comics (more or less) but the "aging commando" plot thread added some depth. The flips were pretty sweet as well.

 

[fu manchu]

definitely, roth. I didn't like Nolte at all in the Hulk movie.

 

[Mr. Joker]

Hmm, why not?

 

[TripXyDE]

yeah, im the minority in this one,
NOLTE! (all the way!)
i loved his confrontation with Banner when they were captured and his insane rantings too!

 

[envybianchi]

Huh?! You guys voted Roth over Nolte! You voted "action" over substance! Somethings are just not right in this world.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Roth was badass. Nolte neared Ahnold-in-B&R terrible with his scene chewing.

 

[November Rain]

A better villain or a better antagonist.

Notle was evil through and through and had problems sticking to the slow paced authority of the government or generally anyone who couldn't understand his greater goal.

He also was willing to sacrifice his own son, a fate never really shown in a film, most villains have some compassion towards their own family but nolte had none towards bruce.

unfortunately it was never shown but nolte was the bigger threat to banner and to the 'world' and he had to be nuked to be taken out while abomination was merely strangled.

roth had no personal involvement or history with banner it was all about the hulk, he was only there to get hit but he dished out more of the beating.

both didn't become real villains until the last act of the film (or superhero type villains) and this may play badly in both their favours since they both only had one true match up with the hulk.

I personally prefer nolte because his story and motivations are solid plus he also made fun of bruce 'Quit your balling, you low life piece of trash', best paternal line ever delivered.

ROth brought nothing new to the table, his impact was only just better than juggernauts in the last stand.

 

[Diamondhead]

You know what!
When I really think about it, I like the first movie better
Nick Nolte was a better villain.
An incredible hulk movie has no place for a character like frisky dingo’s kill face,
At least not yet
Beside the first movie was really about the hulk from the comic books
The one that that travels by making huge leaps
It’s as if that new director was afraid to show it like it is
Can you imagine it?
It like having a superman movie where superman doesn’t fly
Or Spiderman don’t swing from building to building.

Only a in a Batman movie one can allow such drastic changes
Of course the Bat as no freaking powers to mess with.
Except when they try to put him in a too much realistic world
He kinds of look ridiculous with that pointy horned mask of his
And those villains look even worse

Anyways I hate it when they give a job to a director who doesn’t do a complete research.
At least Ang Lee did his freaking homework.

 

[Mr. Joker]

Eh, no, the first movie was not about the Hulk from the comic books. The only thing similar to the comic books were the names & a green giant rampaging. Aside from that, they didn't do a lot similar with the comics. If he did do homework, he still failed the big test which was making the movie. I'll admit that I enjoy it & it was good but just like American Godzilla isn't the true Godzilla, Ang Lee's Hulk wasn't the true Hulk.

 

[November Rain]

well neither was norton's so all points for and against are mute.

 

[Mr. Joker]

What....are you talking about?

 

[November Rain]

norton's hulk was the tv hulk which isn't the true hulk.

 

[Obi-Ron]

There is no "true" Hulk. He's a fictional character. And one that stands up to reinterpretation in various media.

 

[November Rain]

the real one is the one depicted in the cannon of the universe set out by its creator.

you can be true to a fictional character.

yeah, he is more than welcome to be reinterpretated however one must be reasonable and understand that in both of these films none of the interpretations are really true to the spirit of the creator's cannon hulk. So using that point for one and not the under is kinda pointless in a thread that is supposed to compare the two.

it's like saying one hulk is better because they are green when both are green

you can't legitimately say the first hulk film was not the hulk from the comic books when the second one is equally not the hulk from the comic books. that's my point.

 

[fu manchu]

Hmm, why not?

because of this reason:

Nolte neared Ahnold-in-B&R terrible with his scene chewing.

 

[Mr. Joker]

norton's hulk was the tv hulk which isn't the true hulk.

Hah, if you say so.

 

[YJ1]

The whole Nick Nolte father character killed the first movie. Roth is a pleasant surprise and a great character. Simply NO contest.

 

[Mr. Joker]

I wouldn't say that. Nick Nolte's David Banner was brilliantly played, except for at the very end when he became the Absorbing Man.

 

[scatterax]

A better villain or a better antagonist.

Notle was evil through and through and had problems sticking to the slow paced authority of the government or generally anyone who couldn't understand his greater goal.

He also was willing to sacrifice his own son, a fate never really shown in a film, most villains have some compassion towards their own family but nolte had none towards bruce.

unfortunately it was never shown but nolte was the bigger threat to banner and to the 'world' and he had to be nuked to be taken out while abomination was merely strangled.

roth had no personal involvement or history with banner it was all about the hulk, he was only there to get hit but he dished out more of the beating.

both didn't become real villains until the last act of the film (or superhero type villains) and this may play badly in both their favours since they both only had one true match up with the hulk.

I personally prefer nolte because his story and motivations are solid plus he also made fun of bruce 'Quit your balling, you low life piece of trash', best paternal line ever delivered.

ROth brought nothing new to the table, his impact was only just better than juggernauts in the last stand.

in all fairness getting strangled by the hulk is probably juz as lethal as getting nuked. it's juz not as wide spread.

 

[November Rain]

that's crazy logic...