Will Hulk be leaping and running fast in the movie?

[Advanced Dark]

Now imagine a Hulk vs Transformers film and how that would do at the Box Office. Oh my God!

 

[carrrnuttt]

You challenged me, so now's my turn: Have you watched the movie? In your expert opinion, do the physics all add up? Considering Hulk's "estimated 1,200 to 1,500lb weight" and any of the air resistance that you allude to, can you tell all of us with a straight face that his jumps and the landings, therein, align perfectly with the physics that would be behind them? I was watching the movie again last night and paid particular attention to the jumps. While the movie does provide some "thuds" and crash landings, they seem minor compared to what should be there. Hulk also gets a running start on several leaps - a triple jump, more or less - and these leaps, to me, seemed the most believable of any. But the majority of the jumps, while he's trekking across the desert, are single bounds and it looks ridiculous.

Actually, the single bounds are more attuned to Physics than the double/triple jumps. Like I mentioned before, these types of "hops" should be creating craters, as his legs' force is jackhammering down on the ground, instead of just pushing off of it.

Same goes between him just merely landing, and landing with his legs cocked to release energy again. It's not just air resistance on the other side of the coin, but his own weight, and the force of the fall behind his legs' motion, so exponentially more should be felt by the ground.

Again, if his legs have the strength to support a mountain, that force can easily take him out of the Earth's atmosphere. Imagine the Saturn V rocket that took Apollo out of the atmosphere. The force that rocket had to propel hundreds of tons into space will hardly dent a mountain, much less support it. Imagine that force pushing against "only" 1,500 lbs. A single jump is more than enough for him.

Let's put this way: If a flea "can jump the scale equivalent of a human jumping over a 480ft tall building" because its legs are sufficiently stronger than the weight of its body, are you suggesting a.) that Hulk's physical makeup more closely resembles that of a flea than anything else and b.) that Hulk jumping like a flea in the movie is something we should actually want? Are there other examples in nature that maybe Hulk would be better taking on the form of? A kangaroo? A grasshopper?

You have all the answers, chief. Let loose.

The Hulk doesn't need to be in the form of anything. The flea and the grasshopper both store energy using a catapult-like action with their legs. The kangaroo barely jumps higher than a very athletic human.

The Hulk has no need to store energy using wildly springing body parts. He has all the force he needs in his big toe.

This is also the first time I have ever gotten this in depth about this, as unlike you, I know how to turn this side of myself off when watching a movie. Try it. You might enjoy these kinds of movies a bit better.

 

[carrrnuttt]

Now imagine a Hulk vs Transformers film and how that would do at the Box Office. Oh my God!

As much as I LOVE the Transformers, I doubt if they will stand a chance against the Hulk. They'd get ripped apart like nothing. Not unless they have some kind of distance weapon they can develop that can actually harm the Hulk enough.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

Here lies post #37.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

This is also the first time I have ever gotten this in depth about this, as unlike you, I know how to turn this side of myself off when watching a movie. Try it. You might enjoy these kinds of movies a bit better.

Ha... a typical male. You compartmentalize things, referring to and/or thinking of yourself in terms of parts and pieces... you know, this side of me, that side of me, etc? I like to think of myself as one cohesive unit and, well, the fact is I am a cohesive unit. If I watch something that simply doesn't look right on the screen, I don't say to myself, "Self, that doesn't look right." Or, "Self, ignore what you just saw and enjoy the movie in spite of it." No, I do not "turn myself off" or ON, as if such things were possible. Indeed, I simply AM - complete with thoughts, feelings, moods, cravings, etc. - and unlike you, I do not believe in being something I am NOT. Thus, when natural reactions well up inside of me, I do not reject them as though some higher ground were to be found "on the other side of the coin" or rainbow or tunnel or wherever you would have it. Instead, I welcome them and attempt to get to the bottom of them.

All of that aside, what you're saying about the Hulk is starting to make sense to me... Hulk's legs can support a mountain, so he can therefore spring off the ground any which way he pleases. But it goes without saying whether you've actually seen the movie and whether you think things look right in the movie. Or did you simply turn yourself off when you watched it? I mean, we can argue the physics all day, but isn't the point of these threads to hear what people think, not just what they know?

You mentioned that "these types of 'hops' should be creating craters, as his legs' force is jackhammering down on the ground, instead of just pushing off of it," a point that Advanced Dark first made on post #140. In post #147, you made a couple of comments that seemed to agree with him, but the bulk of your response only offered points concerning the science behind it all. So I'm genuinely curious: Did you watch the movie and do you think TIH should do things the same?

I do appreciate the pure science you're offering here, and whether it's the first time or the 457th time you've gone into such depth, it sure beats a lot of the things I'm used to reading here. Oh, and here was my brother's reaction to one of your posts (#147):

"I won't get into the comments on the hulk movies. I never saw any of them. But the guy is right and wrong on several things. Try this. Go home, get on your bath scale, and jump up. The guy does not understand soil traction mechanics completely, if at all. Just a good guesser. And he doesn't talk about Pressure or Impulse either, which both play a role in this situation."

 

[carrrnuttt]

I saw the movie more than once (I have the DVD), and I don't care how they do the jumps or non-jumps. As long as it entertains me and keeps me in my seat.

Although, after watching Dawn of the Dead for the third time on TV (Showtime), and watching both Resident Evil movies more than once, I was wondering about the science of the reanimated corpses: About how the virus turns people back on basically, but some of these zombies have had their jugular cut. It's like turning on a car with no fluids.

I do appreciate the pure science you're offering here, and whether it's the first time or the 457th time you've gone into such depth, it sure beats a lot of the things I'm used to reading here. Oh, and here was my brother's reaction to one of your posts (#147):

"I won't get into the comments on the hulk movies. I never saw any of them. But the guy is right and wrong on several things. Try this. Go home, get on your bath scale, and jump up. The guy does not understand soil traction mechanics completely, if at all. Just a good guesser. And he doesn't talk about Pressure or Impulse either, which both play a role in this situation."

Well, unlike him, I am no engineer or scientist. Just a well-read software developer who's always been fascinated with Science.

Though I can't explain it like a professor or your brother can, I know what he means. Another analogy he could have used is you jumping from your bed. You will see the flex of the bed surface as you jump, just as you see an increase in weight on the scale as you perform the jumping motion. But then it gets too complicated. Since we have no real-world equivalent of someone or something pushing off the ground with as much force as the Hulk is capable of, the only way to get a "realistic" scenario is by calculating based off theoretical forces the Hulk can generate, and varying ground densities he could be jumping off of. 1) That's a bit too far for a comic book debate. 2) I'll leave that up to "The Science of the Hulk" show that hopefully someone comes up with, or your brother.

Again, if we aim to debate about this to no end, it becomes a slippery-slope, as we will have to wonder about the glass windows Spidey doesn't break when he uses only the force of his legs to jump from said window to another building. I am pretty sure the force required to do that is a lot more than any skyscraper window is required to handle. Or the fact cars are not one piece solid objects, yet we have superheroes grabbing them only on one corner, and swinging them like a bat. There is a long debate waiting on what forces that one piece they grabbed should be able to hold.

Bottomline: "It's a movie". "Suspension of disbelief" should be an underlying part of going to the movies or reading a comicbook, and especially when you are combining those two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

Suspension of disbelief is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize people's relationships to art. It refers to the alleged willingness of a reader or viewer to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic, impossible, or contradictory. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.

Superman and other examples
One of the most-well known examples of suspension of disbelief is the audience's acceptance that Superman hides his identity from the world by simply donning a pair of glasses, wearing conservative clothing, and acting in a "mild-mannered" fashion. Not only is the disguise so thin as to be ridiculous, but also in the TV series, Adventures of Superman, this absurdity was carried to an extreme. Lois and Jimmy constantly suspected Clark of being Superman, yet when obvious evidence was right in their faces — such as times when Clark was missing his glasses — they never saw the resemblance. (Noel Neill and Jack Larson, in DVD commentary, said their standard answer when questioned about this was, "We wanted to keep our jobs!")

Strangely, while some audience members took issue with the flimsiness of Superman's disguise, they didn't take issue with the idea of the existence of a superbeing whose only weakness was kryptonite. One defending suspension of disbelief might say that flying, along with the rest of Superman's abilities, is a foundational premise regarding the character, which the audience accepted as part of the deal at the beginning. On the other hand, the audience did not sign on for obtuseness bordering on mental deficiency by a half-dozen main characters and therefore this violates the original deal.

Video games are also said to require suspension of disbelief. Often, realism is compromised even in games set out to be realistic either intentionally to not overcomplicate game mechanics or due to technical limitations. Some games based on Spider-Man have the comic hero swinging around a city with his webs sticking to nothing but the sky. Another example is of Solid Snake's performance of near impossible acrobatic stunts in the remake The Twin Snakes as opposed to his more down to earth style of combat (due to graphical limitations during the time) in the original Metal Gear Solid. Others feature instant death upon falling into water instead of giving the player a chance to swim out before drowning. Also, in many video games, a character will say the same phrase over and over indefinitely when repeatedly talked to. Some video games begin with a tutorial in which the player is taught how to play. These are often woven into the story, so a character in the game might say to the hero, "Press the triangle button to jump! Walk up to a crystal to save your game!" and so forth. In the fictional context of the game world, such sequences make no sense — the hero is being told to push a button which (from his perspective) does not exist, in order to perform normal activities such as jumping and running. According to the proponent of the theory, it's up to the player to reconcile this problem by suspending his or her disbelief.
Yet another example where suspended disbelief is said to be necessary is kayfabe in professional wrestling.

Gary Larson discussed the question with regard to his comic strip, The Far Side; he noted that readers wrote him to complain that a male mosquito referred to his "job" sucking blood when it is in fact the females that drain blood, but that the same readers accepted that the mosquitoes (in "fact") live in houses, wear clothes, and speak English.

A further example can be found in the Star Wars and other films which include a space setting, where sounds caused by spacecraft (i.e. engines, gunfire) can be heard despite the scenes being viewed from within space itself. Such sound effects are often vital for creating the atmosphere of a scene, such as space battles (which, in all fairness, would be far less exciting without them).

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

What's wrong with Spiderman's webs sticking to nothing but the sky?

Ha, okay, so I'm willing to accept some other things in other movies that I normally do not question. I guess no special effect just appears so blatantly obviously artificial as Hulk's jumping, as portrayed in the first movie, to me. I LIKE the fact that he can jump great distances, but you know, for the average human, even 30+ feet would be better than most people. Give Hulk, say, a 100-foot arc and I think it still conveys his incredible strength, while maintaining an aura of believability. I want him to do things that we never see, yes - I don't wish to alienate Hulk fans by pushing for TIH producers to dial down on his abilities - but I want to think that such an event could actually happen, too. Essentially, just make it look better. That's my battle cry. Shorter jumps, rather bursts, with less "flying." And truly, I was able to enjoy the movie, regardless.

Although, after watching Dawn of the Dead for the third time on TV (Showtime), and watching both Resident Evil movies more than once, I was wondering about the science of the reanimated corpses: About how the virus turns people back on basically, but some of these zombies have had their jugular cut. It's like turning on a car with no fluids.

A valid question! (let me know when you have an answer)

Well, unlike him, I am no engineer or scientist. Just a well-read software developer who's always been fascinated with Science.

And I, a communications guru whose own fascination with science has sadly been met with the utter inability to retain any of its concepts.

Sorry to have bored the rest of you with this anal retreat from the comics to the science.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

So, let me get this straight: Running at speeds of 170 mph to 300 mph looks ridiculous, but jumping distances that defy all known physics somehow doesn't? The more I read this forum, the more amazed I am. Leaping may be "Hulk," but it was entirely UNrealistic in the first film, if you ask me. I mean, here they are making a serious film and then they have Hulk do something that - even with all of his strength considered - would never be possible without legs that rival those of a grasshopper or something else of comparable elasticity. Hulk's legs have no such characteristics and it completely took away from the movie's believability. At least with Spider-Man, the things that his webs can do have some sense of credibility about them. A green monster bounding all over the globe has no credibility whatsoever. So, if you want another Hulk that fails in the box office, just keep having him leap from plateau to plateau... just like you want it. And then blame the writer or whomever else would be responsible for the movie's failure to live up to your expectations.

The leaping sure wasn't why the most cited reason for people not liking Hulk was "It was boring". You actually mentioned the problem...they tried to make a "realistic" movie.

If you want a believable movie, you're going to have to eliminate the entire story. A guy gets a dose of gamma radiation...and that makes him turn green and get strong? (And lose his vocal cords) Nope...that has to go.

Since just about everything Spider-Man does in his movies isn't "realistic"...and audiences loved them... I'd say that isn't a problem for a super hero movie.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Right. And in theory, I also don't have a problem with the Hulk jumping great distances. He needs some superior form of locomotion and I can see that "jumping" serves as a logical means to that end... I can see where the inventors were coming from. But from a MOVIE standpoint, no way. It just doesn't appeal to neutral observers. Girlfriends and wives going to see the movie are like, "Wha... huh? That was funny" and giggle to themselves. They're only there in the first place because you're there, most of them anyway. It's on the same level as the Shrek comments... big green man who's unbelievable as a real-life phenomenon. Now, that's fine if the movie is ENTIRELY fiction, but it's not. We're dealing with real places and real names insofar as the movie is concerned. People WANT to believe it's real, else they become disappointed when the movie deviates too far from reality. It's this way with Spider-Man and any other comic book movie fanchise. A movie like Spider-Man doesn't break box office records because people are just so enamored with fiction. I think they believe, to some extent, that what they saw COULD have happened.

You want Hulk leaping ridiculous distances? Fine. Moviegoers will be exiting their seats while he's in mid-air. I just think it looks entirely unrealistic on the screen and it's one less thing we need to worry about. He can still be all-powerful without the jumping. As for running... I checked the original Hulk movie site and Wiki earlier today and they don't say ANYTHING about his running ability. Hell, his ability to jump 3 miles is nearly a footnote on the website (source: http://www.thehulk.com/modern_evo/index.html). Wiki says he can jump 1,000 miles, but it's buried in the "Powers and Abilities" section. For two physical characteristics that people are so passionate about, one would think they would be up there with Hulk's strength as prominent features. But since they're not, that's one more reason I think we can do without them. Let Hulk be lumbering... let him take all the s*** they can give him. He'll just show THAT's why he's the Hulk!!

I can't believe you are pointing to the only scenes in the entire movie that people actually liked as the reason it failed. Amazing.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

like i said earlier... hulk should run.. i have no problem with that... and i honestly don't care if he leaps or not, but if he does... it shouldnt look like it did in HULK, keep it a bit lower to the ground, because it looked almost like flying in HULK, hulk shouldnt be in the clouds

That sounds reasonable. (on a messsage board?)

 

[JeetKuneDo]

well explain yourself instead of coming across defensively.

you've been on the hype to know saying something like 'it didn't look right' isn't a justified enough explanation.

I've just watched the scene numerous times on youtube and i cant personally see a problem with that cloud footage, it is on for like four seconds max. his eyes are closed, he is experiencing lots of winds and he's that high for only a moment because he's in mountainous region. his body is going from a more streamlined approach to a landing position, arms are being used for balance.

just after that clip, there is an aerial view below cloud level showing hulk doing shorter jumps (vertically and horizontally) and also incorporating running.

so why does it take you out, it's right before the xena-esque music singing starts which i can see making people laugh, or is that the scene you speak of..

here's the video.

Wow...watching that again makes me think someone would have to be insane or ******ed to think the Hulk was "flying". It could not be more obvious he is jumping.

I smell fans of the lame TV show here.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

^And I smell a troll. Keep catching up on all of your Hulk reading. With any luck, you might eventually establish some credibility.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

^And I smell a troll. Keep catching up on all of your Hulk reading. With any luck, you might eventually establish some credibility.

Nice Ad Hominem.

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

^You would know.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

A great way to avoid addressing points, eh?

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

I don't like to "avoid addressing points" any more than you do. It's just that you arrived on the scene like a week ago and suddenly are romping around, critiquing everyone's posts like you're the new sheriff in town. Well, pardon me, I missed the part when we were supposed to care what you think. And you have the audacity to label my post "amazing"? Bold, coming from someone with a whopping 81 posts in 17 months... you astute observer and critic you.

 

[Silver Knight]

Now imagine a Hulk vs Transformers film and how that would do at the Box Office. Oh my God!

Never, going to happen. Ever.

Cool idea though.

 

[HulkStomps!]

Never, going to happen. Ever.

Cool idea though.

Yes, but the beauty of that is that we'll someday have the next best thing! Rather than Transformers, they'll be huge Hulk Busters!

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I don't like to "avoid addressing points" any more than you do. It's just that you arrived on the scene like a week ago and suddenly are romping around, critiquing everyone's posts like you're the new sheriff in town. Well, pardon me, I missed the part when we were supposed to care what you think. And you have the audacity to label my post "amazing"? Bold, coming from someone with a whopping 81 posts in 17 months... you astute observer and critic you.

Ad Hominem again. What does my post count have to do with the point I made?

Should I post 100 posts tonight so I will be "worthy"? (Or maybe I can transfer a couple 100 posts from Rotten Tomatoes?)

Description of Ad Hominem


Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem

1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
   Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
   Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
   Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

[Bannerless Hulk]

As I said, you would know. With comments like these, you're a pioneer of sorts:

"I can't believe you are pointing to the only scenes in the entire movie that people actually liked as the reason it failed. Amazing."

-and-

"Wow...watching that again makes me think someone would have to be insane or ******ed to think the Hulk was 'flying'. It could not be more obvious he is jumping. I smell fans of the lame TV show here."

Ad hominem? There's your freaking ad hominem.

In the first post, your expression of disbelief undermines the integrity of my collective feeling about the Hulk and assumes everyone liked the jumping, as presented in the movie. Do I need to tell you what happens when you assume? In the second post, you simply insult November Rain and the TV show that was so popular among people. No stroke of genius there. In fact, there's no particular well-reasoned argument in either of your comments, just the blatant appeal to your own ignorances.

But that doesn't bother me half as much as the fact you've bounced around posts, targeting/isolating things you disagree with, and now expect me to address your so-called "points." I mean, didn't you just come back to the Hype, like, last week? Who do you think you are, the pope?

Fact is if you had been around, you'd know where I stand on the Hulk. Heck, if you had even read the full range of comments I've made in this very thread, you would know the issue of realism in the first Hulk movie was fully discussed by carrrnuttt and myself. But here you come in posts #158 and #159, digging up comments I made before carrrnuttt even entered the discussion and accusing me of ad hominem...

So what am I not responding to that I should respond to? You have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Silver Knight]

The Hulk will leap in the movie just not 1000 feet at a time.

 

[Advanced Dark]

As I said, you would know. With comments like these, you're a pioneer of sorts:

"I can't believe you are pointing to the only scenes in the entire movie that people actually liked as the reason it failed. Amazing."

-and-

"Wow...watching that again makes me think someone would have to be insane or ******ed to think the Hulk was 'flying'. It could not be more obvious he is jumping. I smell fans of the lame TV show here."

Ad hominem? There's your freaking ad hominem.

In the first post, your expression of disbelief undermines the integrity of my collective feeling about the Hulk and assumes everyone liked the jumping, as presented in the movie. Do I need to tell you what happens when you assume? In the second post, you simply insult November Rain and the TV show that was so popular among people. No stroke of genius there. In fact, there's no particular well-reasoned argument in either of your comments, just the blatant appeal to your own ignorances.

But that doesn't bother me half as much as the fact you've bounced around posts, targeting/isolating things you disagree with, and now expect me to address your so-called "points." I mean, didn't you just come back to the Hype, like, last week? Who do you think you are, the pope?

Fact is if you had been around, you'd know where I stand on the Hulk. Heck, if you had even read the full range of comments I've made in this very thread, you would know the issue of realism in the first Hulk movie was fully discussed by carrrnuttt and myself. But here you come in posts #158 and #159, digging up comments I made before carrrnuttt even entered the discussion and accusing me of ad hominem...

So what am I not responding to that I should respond to? You have no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cracker Jack]

Red Bull. It gives you wings. t:

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I tell u right now its a comic movie u are supposed to see things u don't see everyday. I hope Hulk is extremly powerful in the film. I want him swating tanks away with casual backhands.

I agree, i hate it when they downpower the hero/characters just to make them more realistic. That is one Ghost Rider got right, he was just as powerful in the movie as he was in the comics.

That is something TIH would do well to copy IMO.

 

[Sava]

but thats a bad thing IMO, Army have to be a credible villian, there's no use them fighting Hulk if he can just walk all over them, thats one of the things Ang got right, Army still landed their punches and hurt Hulk even though we knew he could beat them, thats how it should be IMO