Bean

Wow. Talk about a world of difference between this one and Ang Lee's crapfest.

Ed Norton was a better Banner, the CGI was sooo much better (Hulk was the same size throughout the movie) Abomination was spectacular, and even Lou Ferino's (sp?) cameo was done really well.

I liked the Stark cameo at the end, it was clever. And I liked the way they took the character this route instead of the philosophical angle Lee tried in the first one.

Oh and of course the foreshadowing of the Leader was cute.

My favourite part of the movie of course though, was what I was waiting for throughout the entire first one.... "HULK SMASH!!!"

Awesome.

__________________
"I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing."

--James T. Kirk

Brikar

I have to disagree almost entirely. Ang Lee's "Hulk" is a great, terribly under-appreciated movie. Bruce's rage and repressed emotions are examined far better, and thus give the Hulk a better reason to exist than the new flick. The only mis-step in Ang Lee's movie is the editing style, which can be distracting and serves no real purpose.

"The Incredible Hulk", by contrast, is limp summer popcorn. Ed Norton brought almost nothing to the role. Liv Tyler has NOTHING on Jennifer Connelly in either the looks or the acting department. I thought William Hurt would be well-cast as General Ross, but just like Liv Tyler he sleepwalks through the role, bringing none of the intensity Sam Elliott had.

And as for the CG... nowhere near as good. The Hulk looks like a plastic McFarlane toy, rather than the more natural creature in Ang Lee's version. Whoever did the surfacing needs to learn about skin and musculature. His color looks a little better with the more drab green, but otherwise, he's an inferior CG construction. But the real killer is the way he moves. His movements are more comic-bookish-animated rather than the realistic, motion captured movements of Ang Lee's Hulk. I don't know if the new one was mo-cap or traditionally animated, but it just didn't look like a real creature would move. Ang Lee's Hulk stumbled when he ran, struggled to pick things up, would react far better to the world around him. When he tore the top of a tank off, he hit himself with the turret before correcting his posture. Little details like that sell the whole thing.

This is not to say that "The Incredible Hulk" sucked hardcore or anything. I had fun watching it. There's plenty of cool action, and it's nifty to see him fight the Abomination... but ultimately, it's a weaker script paired a less talented director. Rumor has it there was a ton of footage cut, most of it character building. I'd like to see if any of that gets put back in for the DVD release to try beef up the narrative.

__________________
"A million monkeys typing until the end of time will produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Ten thousand monkeys typing for ten thousand years will write a Hemingway. Ten monkeys typing over Columbus Day weekend will give you a Dan Brown."

http://olympusmans.blogspot.com
http://benforrealz.blogspot.com

Closet Racist

Alleged deleted footage: Banner goes to the Arctic to commit suicide and finds a frozen Cap'n America. I hope this is in the DVD extras.

__________________

Bean

I dunno Brikar. I guess we differ in what we were looking for from the movie. It's a comic book movie based on the Hulk. It's not really meant to be anything more than a summer flick. When you try and get all insightful and theological like Ang did, it's bound to flop because let's face it, the comics hardly took this approach with Hulk. Perhaps superficially they have, but not to the extent the first movie did.

Look at Iron Man for example. I have to say, right up there with Batman Begins for superhero movies(Batman is of course still the superior film). But Iron Man wasn't really anything more than what it offered on the surface. There was a little superficial character building with Stark going all "peaceful" and whatnot, but it was hardly to the same level that the original Hulk movie was.

And that's what does it for me. They're obviously tying all these movies together for the eventual Avengers movie, so it should make sense that they all be the same "type" of movies; summer action flicks.

And besides.. HULK SMASH!!!!!!

__________________
"I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing."

--James T. Kirk

Bean

I think that would have been a bit much for me. And besides, that might have detracted from the actual Cap movie. They're gonna need to do his origin from square one for people who didn't see The Incredible Hulk.

Although I did like the couple of references they made in the IH about the super soldier serum.

__________________
"I haven't faced death. I've cheated death. I've tricked my way out of death and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing."

--James T. Kirk

Brikar

I don't see that every movie based on a comic has to be "anything more than a summer flick". Now, I'm not saying I didn't like this movie. I had fun with it. I'm just saying Ang Lee's is a better movie. But that just means that it doesn't HAVE to be "just a summer flick". "Batman Begins" and, one hopes, "The Dark Knight" proved that a comic book movie doesn't have to just be a summer flick.

A lot of the stuff in the Ang Lee movie, like the issues with Banner's abusive father, were pulled from Peter David's run on the Hulk comics, so the comics have definitely taken that approach - to bring real depth to the series and the character beyond "grrr Hulk smash!"

I think the fault is with the audience. Personally, I don't want two hours of "Hulk Smash!" Sure, smashing must occur in a Hulk movie. But I'd rather it be like Ang Lee's, where there's real depth to it. But judging from "Incredible"s box office take, other people don't have any idea what they want. A lot of the reviews I've read for the movie open with "It's not Ang Lee's movie" or some variation on the phrase, and then go on to say that it's empty but full of smashing. And people still didn't go to see it.

Why not?

Do audiences just not care about the Hulk? I remember one friend who disliked the character, without having seen anything but a couple episodes of the old Bill Bixby series, because "He's not a superhero". Well what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

Awright now I'm just going off on tangents...

I did like "The Incredible Hulk" for what it was - but I wanted more than what it was. I think "Iron Man" gave us more, I think "Batman Begins" and "Superman Returns" gave us more, I think "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2" gave us more... and I think Ang Lee's "Hulk" gave us more.

__________________
"A million monkeys typing until the end of time will produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. Ten thousand monkeys typing for ten thousand years will write a Hemingway. Ten monkeys typing over Columbus Day weekend will give you a Dan Brown."

http://olympusmans.blogspot.com
http://benforrealz.blogspot.com