The Incredible Hulk Discussion Thread--SPOILERS!!

How would you rate Letterier's "The Incredible Hulk"?

  • Total voters
    27
Venom Melendez said:
But that's exactly how it is.

And all Banner wants to do is get rid of the Hulk and it's a horrible expierience for him.

He's not supose to like it.
Click to expand...

I actually like the approach of Banner liking being Hulk. Just like in the Ultimates.
Also the Ang Hulk that grew in size as he got more and more angry was awesome. A really big hulk makes a lot of sense.
 
SeAcoW said:
I actually like the approach of Banner liking being Hulk. Just like in the Ultimates.
Also the Ang Hulk that grew in size as he got more and more angry was awesome. A really big hulk makes a lot of sense.
Click to expand...

I thought him growing in size was just really stupid. He doesn't get bigger the angrier he gets he gets stronger. "You wouldn't like him when he gets bigger."
 
I can't believe how many people think the new Hulk looked less like a current-gen video-game cutscene and more like a solid, real-skinned creature than Ang Lee's did. I actually can't believe it. More detailed, sure, but.... more realistic CGI-wise?

I really can't comprehend this.... you really couldn't tell the new one was obviously CGI? Compared to Lee's? The photo somebody posted wasn't that good an example, by the way. Anyway, I'll just wait patiently for Doom to carpet-bomb the lot of you.
 
Planet-man said:
I really can't comprehend this.... you really couldn't tell the new one was obviously CGI? Compared to Lee's? The photo somebody posted wasn't that good an example, by the way. Anyway, I'll just wait patiently for Doom to carpet-bomb the lot of you.
Click to expand...
If it's not a good example then step-up and show some proof why. Gemini did and if that's not a "good example" I'd like to see why exactly.
 
Planet-man said:
I can't believe how many people think the new Hulk looked less like a current-gen video-game cutscene and more like a solid, real-skinned creature than Ang Lee's did. I actually can't believe it. More detailed, sure, but.... more realistic CGI-wise?

I really can't comprehend this.... you really couldn't tell the new one was obviously CGI? Compared to Lee's? The photo somebody posted wasn't that good an example, by the way. Anyway, I'll just wait patiently for Doom to carpet-bomb the lot of you.
Click to expand...


I haven't even seen this yet and I still agree with you.
 
I didn't like it. It was alright, I guess. But I didn't enjoy watching it. I could have not gone and probably wouldn't have cared.

Ever since the idea of a new Hulk movie with Ed Norton attached was announced, I was excited. But then I begun to see more and more of it... and I lost interest. I heard it was good so I went. I was disappointed.

I like Ed Norton. He was a good Bruce Banner. But there wasn't anything special about him. The Hulk was average. I just don't think the Hulk was designed to be shown on the screen. There's been at least three versions, and they'll all been a bit off.

Liv Tyler is boring boring boring.

I normally like Tim Roth, but I didn't like him here. Emil Blonsky just seemed lame... and then all the supersoldier crap. No. It just looked out of place. Captain America is the supersoldier. Not Emil Blonsky. Abomination looked like ****.

William Hurt (is that who it was?) was okay. I prefer Sam Elliot though.

I thought the flashback scenes at the beginning were kinda lame. It felt really tacked on. I did like the beginning with Banner working at the factory and stuff. But... meh. I didn't really enjoy it.

Oh, and Samuel Sterns was ****ing ridiculous. One, a green guy with an orange jumpsuit with a giant head is not a good villain. So they decide to use the name and give it to a character that's human. And then they make him nutty. That's okay, I guess. Then they give him a sample of the Banner blood and make his head ****ing move! What the ****. That was ridiculous. If there's a sequel, I can't believe they'll use the Leader as the villain, let alone this damn actor as him.

And then it ends with him losing control (or gaining control?). The Tony Stark scene was good, but if you hadn't seen Iron Man, you would have no idea what was going on. I'm pretty sure I was the only person in the cinema who knew what was happening.

It was a lot better than Lee's Hulk, but it just wasn't as good as it could've been.

Also, this movie just made me want to read The Ultimates again. I like that Hulk the best.
 
Last edited:
bluebeast said:
I thought him growing in size was just really stupid. He doesn't get bigger the angrier he gets he gets stronger. "You wouldn't like him when he gets bigger."
Click to expand...

Haha. Well, it makes sense that in order to get stronger he needs to get bigger....right?
 
Smauel Sterns is the Leader, Proj. He started out human (as a janitor, actually) before being irradiated. I don't understand your bizarre complaint.
 
Joe Kalicki said:
Smauel Sterns is the Leader, Proj. He started out human (as a janitor, actually) before being irradiated. I don't understand your bizarre complaint.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I got confused by that part as well.


Now, I can understand about the actor, but I think he worked well as Samuel Sterns as a human. All the odd excitement he had about Hulk and everything else related was good.
 
Ice said:
Yeah, I got confused by that part as well.


Now, I can understand about the actor, but I think he worked well as Samuel Sterns as a human. All the odd excitement he had about Hulk and everything else related was good.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The character's wackiness will just serve to enhance his future evillness, provided they don't also make The Leader wacky.
 
I know Sterns is the Leader. I was saying how bad it was that this actor was playing this guy, and then will probably play the actual Leader in a sequel, which is even worse. He would be terrible.

And the head moving bit was especially lame.
 
ProjectX2 said:
I know Sterns is the Leader. I was saying how bad it was that this actor was playing this guy, and then will probably play the actual Leader in a sequel, which is even worse. He would be terrible.

And the head moving bit was especially lame.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think he'll fit the role well. Leader is kinda like Sinestro, that kinda eerie, effeminate John Waters kind of evil. (Yes, I'd sooo cast John Waters as Sinestro)
 
skotti-chan said:
Sinestro, that kinda eerie, effeminate John Waters kind of evil. (Yes, I'd sooo cast John Waters as Sinestro)
Click to expand...

BOOYA!

Proj said:
Oh, and Samuel Sterns was ****ing ridiculous. One, a green guy with an orange jumpsuit with a giant head is not a good villain. So they decide to use the name and give it to a character that's human. And then they make him nutty. That's okay, I guess. Then they give him a sample of the Banner blood and make his head ****ing move! What the ****. That was ridiculous. If there's a sequel, I can't believe they'll use the Leader as the villain, let alone this damn actor as him.
Click to expand...

Agreed.



Okay, so this movie was cool. I mean, I really liked Ed Norton as Bruce Banner. He added this really shifty, skeevy paranoia to the character where if you saw the guy on the street you'd try and keep the **** away from him. I thought it was smartly written for the most part but had a couple pretty unbearable lines.

It lost me a little when the Hulk started showing up. I mean, the design was fine, the action was mostly cool (I liked him making weapons out of wreckage a couple times) and relatively brutal, and the end of that first little human scene with Betsy was nice. But for most of it, I just felt like I was watching a video game. I mean, I recognize that's not necessarily anyone's fault and it's just inherent in a movie about a computer generated Hulk, but I had pretty mixed feelings on the thing. I don't know why all these feature film comic book releases feel obligated to focus on CGI. Banner talks about the experience being like a full-blown acid trip. I think it would have been more innovative and all around slick to juxtapose the Bruce Banner scenes with high production animation for the Hulk sequences. Imagine sequences in full 2D animation, with shighly anarchist, psychedelic sensibilities basically seen in the way the Hulk would see the world: vibrant colors that sometimes forget to stay in the lines, and constant kinetic motion.

OTOH, the Hulk segments of the movie really kind of felt like a new spin on the Japanese monsters style of films. It would be cool to go that route and make the series sort of a modernization of that, with that "Godzilla vs. Rodin! Godzilla vs. Mothra!" sort of feel married allegorically to smart, introspective Banner sequences.
 
Last edited:
Zombipanda said:
It lost me a little when the Hulk started showing up. I mean, the design was fine, the action was mostly cool (I liked him making weapons out of wreckage a couple times) and relatively brutal, and the end of that first little human scene with Betsy was nice. But for most of it, I just felt like I was watching a video game. I mean, I recognize that's not necessarily anyone's fault and it's just inherent in a movie about a computer generated Hulk, but I had pretty mixed feelings on the thing. I don't know why all these feature film comic book releases feel obligated to focus on CGI.
Click to expand...

This is the first film in ages where at several points (mostly the scene at the University where Hulk throws Blonsky into a tree) I was actually going "Come on. He's not even there. It's pretend. Stop insulting my intelligence."

I will agree though, that the action was superb and Hulk's car-gloves are good in anything. :rockon:
 
With all the nods to Captain America I really liked when Hulk through that red piece of metal at the helicopters

Indeed the Car Gloves are great
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top