Advanced Dark said:
^ Where do you see them ignoring what made the character popular in the first place? So far everything LL has said about the film is everything people wanted in the film. While the first film was great to me it was NOT what made the character popular in the first place. Please staring at fungi, having no super-villain, and his father being the absorbing man turning into a big bubble, Hulk dogs? Is that what made the character popular???
If you would have read instead of skimmed, it would make sense- I have never said they're ignoring what makes the character popular. In fact, my post even said that they're going to inject the film full of it. What I'm saying is that the people on this project have shown a lack of understanding for what the Hulk is primarily about. It's not an issue of popularity, it's an issue of concept.
You brought up unpopular parts of the film, so I'll just address a few and you can tell me where Ang got the core concept wrong:
"Staring at fungi"- The Hulk has to be both monstrous and human. Without humanity he is Godzilla on 'roids. The sequence before this vividly depicts the inhuman power and larger-than-life nature of the Hulk. Since at this point in the script the Hulk is no place in the vicinity of Betty he needs something to convey that deep down he is not violent so much as he is prone to violence. Hence the tie-in: he looks at the fungi. The tie-in is in many forms. For one, his fascination of this base organism is ironic considering his own attributes come from the toying with nature. Secondly, it ties in with Bruce's deleted thesis. When one tries to control nature you get forces of nature like the Hulk. When one seeks to leave things as they are the natural reaction is equality. Peter David gets this point dead-on in the novelization. Had the Hulk been left to his own devices his lucid attempts at viewing the world through his newborn eyes would have allowed him to return to Banner's state. It's also a good shot that makes use of the movie Hulk's "human" features.
"Having no super-villain/ his father being the Absorbing Man"- I'll give you two people off the top of my head the Hulk can find himself fighting- The Abomination and The Leader. With that said, there isn't much else. Madman/ Ravage/ Flux are all forgettable characters.So the film had to be creative in that they needed someone who would trigger the transformations while offering a conflict. The Abomination and The Leader were just too early to bring in if they were working with the prospect of a trilogy. Thus the usage of the Absorbing Man. The idea is not original to Schamus' script. David Hayter's original script treatment used Creed as a villain, and Creed is known for having fought the Hulk on a few notable occasions. It also makes more sense to involve the absorbing powers. The fight between Banner and his father is a mental one moreso than a physical one, a cyclical battle between David's quest for power and Banner's quest for normalcy. The fight ends when Banner comes to the realization that conflict breeds more conflict, and succumbs to the absorbing powers. The point being made is that in the end the Hulk perseveres not through his trademark power but through his ability to walk away from the pain his father has caused. It worked to both add scientific fact, character epiphany and a tinge of Greek tragedy to the film. My only qualm is that it could have been longer.
"Turning into a big bubble"- Again, I fail to see the qualm. The film was trying to visually show that there is no way to contain the Hulk's near-infinite amount of power as David was trying to do, as The Leader has tried in the books and how Banner has tried in all mediums. It's the same issue the sequel will face. The film tried to show the Hulk's indominable fury both through growth depending on how angry he was and the fact that The Father's body deformed in it's attempt to stabalize itself. The reaction didn't stop because (like all Hulk villains) David's train of thought he could control a force of nature proved to be foolhardy. And, again, this is not an original idea. The Leader goes through the same thing in Hayter's script treatment. I don't know about you, but I would rather be able to see examples of what's happening than little snippets to please the fanbase like what X3 did with Phoenix. In that film the action additions were pointless. In this film they advanced the plot in a visual manner.
"Hulk dogs"- I love how people have a qualm with this, but are all for Hulk knockoffs making appearances in the film just to sate the collective appetite for two men hitting each other...that aside, this is a sequence that was necessary. I don't think people understand how boring a fight with the Army would become over time in a film like Hulk once you've established enough times how ineffectual the Army is. Thus, you need something that shows how massively powerful the Hulk is. While too unique for it's own good to the point of being silly with the addition of the poodles, the scene goes to show that even when David tries to replicate his son's power there is nothing that can overcome the Hulk. Madman, Ravage, Flux, Abomination...none of them would have fit in this purpose. They all require even more screentime in a film that was already pretty long to explain how they met David Banner and how they were motivated to attack Betty. With animals it's so much easier, as there is no higher calling for motive while offering a visceral fight that shows off the Hulk's power.
Again, all this film did was take concepts that are familiar to the books and add a spin to it. That the spins felt "too artsy" for some isn't too surprising. The Hulk has always had drama and psychoanalyzation. The Hulk himself has to have humanity while being monstrous, and the film must be about the rage we can all relate to gradually coming out of Banner. If you aren't into either than the early books will be rather boring for you. Most audience members want to see action, but if they make the mistake of believing that's all it's about then that's their own issue. No one wants to dumb down Spider-Man so he can just be a webslinging crimefighter, so why dumb down the core concepts of the Hulk? The story is Faustian in nature and filled with a mix of both horror noir and characterization. If people don't like that then they should be aware that this film may not be for them. Not every character is as demographically wide as Spidey. Ghost Rider and Blade fans are an example- they go against the grain by enjoying horror and action elements. They shouldn't be screwed over to tell a "better" tale.
