Skeptomania - Paranormal / UFOs, etc.

Yaish · Intel Chief

I saw Hulk tonight, and while I really liked it, I didn't love it. It's definitely no Iron Man, but if it weren't for the fact that Iron Man already came out, this might be one of the best superhero movies I've seen.

I'd say ranking Super Hero movies I'd go Iron Man, Spiderman (first one), Batman Begins, original Superman (Christopher Reeves), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Spiderman 2, X2...

Way down at the end of the scale, with the Dolph Lundgren Punisher would be Ang Lee's version of Hulk.

Ok, what they did right:

Story: This movie has one, and it's very well done. It's not an origin story, at the beginning of the movie Bruce Banner is already the Hulk and has been for five years. They don't bother with stupid flashbacks explaining everything, though every once in a while Banner does have PTSD style flashbacks. They aren't used as a literary device however.

Acting: Ed Norton, Tim Roth, William Hurt. Would you expect anything else? It's well acted by all involved, and if you like Liv Tyler you'll love her part. For some reason she seems to be an actress people either love or hate. I love her. I lurvs me some Liv bad.

Tie Ins: Marvel did something somewhat risky with this movie, but it paid off (or will pay off) beautifully I think. While Iron Man may have been the first movie under the new Marvel Studios this movie definitely is the first that acknowledges they are in the Marvel Universe. Throughout the movie you see references to Stark Enterprises, SHIELD, Nick Fury, and the Super Soldier program. They don't try to explain any of it, it's just a fait accompli.

Hulk Presence: The Hulk is present from just a few minutes into the movie right until the very end. This isn't one of those movies where the Hulk only makes an appearance for the climax, and the rest is all story. We see Hulk quite a bit and quite regularly. You won't feel like you've been cheated on seeing the Big Green Dude.

Hulk Character: He's very much like the comic Hulk. A monster sure, but with some intelligence, the ability for rudimentary speech, understanding, and emotion. He isn't the brainless animal from the first Hulk.

What they got wrong:

CGI: Ok, the CGI is MUCH better than it appears in the trailer, but it still isn't up to par for Iron Man, and I even feel like Jurassic Park, 15 years ago did a better job making things seem lifelike.

The actual CGI work seems like it looks like they intended, I just don't really like the way they decided to make him look. He doesn't have that puffy, stung by bees look that Ang Lee's Hulk had, but they gave him a sort of rubbery, amphibian looking skin. That doesn't seem right to me. I think they went overboard on making him look ripped too. I think they might have done that to move away from the previous puffy version, but they went too far. He looks made of tendon instead of muscle. I'd have rather seen a better blend, something more like a contemporary body builder but scaled up 300%.

Really, that's all I can complain about. Everything else seemed top notch, and I REALLY liked the way they tied things in and just got right into the story without a lot of hassle and explanations. Unless you've been under a rock the last 30 years, you know about the Hulk. Marvel capitalized on that and devoted screen time to more action and story, and less backstory.

Now, on to the spoilers.....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A few spoilers, some of which are already known.
Tony Stark appears in the movie, at the very end. He walks into a bar after the final Hulk scenes and meets with General Ross. "So I hear you have a problem" he says, and then mentions "We're putting a team together..." an obvious reference to the Avengers.

At the end of the movie Bruce Banner heads to the Canadian wilderness, British Columbia to be exact where he is living in a log cabin. He is practicing not preventing transformations, but controlling transformations and becoming the Hulk. I think this is extremely interesting because in the comics Wolverine first appeared in a Hulk comic, being sent by the Canadian Government to stop the Hulk from tearing through the countryside. We know the upcoming Wolverine movie won't include the Hulk in any way, but I see a chance of Marvel getting the film rights to Wolverine back perhaps in time for the Hulk sequel.

Speaking of the sequel, the stage has been set for The Leader, one of the classic Hulk foes. Dr Sterns in the movie gets exposed to Banners blood, a few drops on his forehead and we see his skull start to pulse and swell. I think the next Hulk appearance might be in the Avengers, but there is a stage set for another stand alone movie is this one does well.

TheMadHobbit · Subway Tolkien

I completely agree with Yaish execpt for one thing, I put Batman Bigins FIRST.

Otherwise we are in completel agreement.

I am SO looking forward to Hellboy 2: The Golden Army!!!

This is the Summer of Superheroes!!!

Yaish · Intel Chief

TheMadHobbit · Subway Tolkien

I was thinking, it is almost like Marvel finally "figured out" superhero movies. After so many horrible flicks (Reb Brown as Cap anyone?), it is about time we got what we always wanted.

Yaish · Intel Chief

I think Marvel finally decided they were going to MAKE superhero movies. I think before, especially during the 90's they just needed the money so sold the movie rights to their characters to get a quick buck.

Finally they are making the movies themselves and they decided to not just be a comic book company, but a company in the business of creating and promoting superhero stories.
I liked the X-Men movies, but they still had a cheesiness factor that the new Marvel movies don't have. They are making serious superhero movies, making them seem real without having the alter the character in inexcusable ways.

paul68 · Shaved Ape

The one thing that has always set marvel apart from dc, and just about any other form of media entertainment, has been their practice of making their fans feel included. They create characters that the young identify with during some of their most impressionable years. It's VERY important that those kids feel like they give a damn, else those kids will turn their backs on them in a heartbeat.

When marvel first let some of their characters be used for movies, they had little or no involvement, and the studios and producers had no clue whatsoever what their target audience expected. It showed in horrible productions, and disgusted fans.

When marvel took control, they brought with them the same philosophy and principals that have stood them in good stead with thier comics. The fans expect something from them. They expect a level of quality and purity that unless youv'e done your'e homework or have been with the characters from the start, your'e just not going to be able to produce.

You can see the attention to this in the interviews with casts from several of these movies. I mean, imagine. A 30 something year old man, reading wolverine comics for the first time, as part of his job? Ian Mcklellan reading X-men? But it paid off, bigtime. Jackman despite being built entirely wrong, nailed the spirit of the character, and went from nobody to household name in the space of months.

The best thing that happend was for marvel to retain control and take on the risk. The worries now lay with choice of directors and actors, and not with who is actually paying to make the movie, and will they totally butcher it. With marvel at the helm, you KNOW they are going to get their own character right, at least.

Wolverine is going to be a turning point movie for marvel. The expectations are extremely high among the fans. There's going to be little room for fluff, and less forgiveness for liberties. With X-men sure, some stuff was expeted to change, and wolverine was a big draw, but not the whole focus. With Wolverine, if they screw the pooch, it'll be a plateu for Marvel. A great many fans will see them as having shot their wad, and the comic movie phenomena thats taken place in the last 10 years will be done. There'll be more sure, but nothing the likes of the first X-men, or Iron Man.

If however, they take some REAL risks with Wolverine. Include some blood, show some of his truly nasty nature, they'll have a blockbuster on their hands that could easily eclipse Iron Man. What Wolverine fan wouldn't want to see Jackman tell a baddie "too bad" after an epic fight and besting him, gut him, then walk off lighting a stogie without a backward glance? None of that "we have to be better" crap with Logan. Just, "I am the baddest sob there is, and here is why".

As far as Hulk heading for canada, I can't see any reason other than a Wolverine tie in for that. The next Hulk movie might not include Wolverine, but what about Wolverines movie? That could be the surprise Marvel needs for Wolverines solo debut. I'd rather see the Weapon X story line by BW Smith adapted to screen, with some later history tacked on after his escape, but that aint gonna happen. My worry is they'll try to do too much in one movie for Logan. There's just too much to get it all in. His childhood, the wilderness, Japan, WW2, Canada, Espionage, Weapon x, X-men. It's just too big.
We'll see.

I dont like the idea of Hulk and Wolvie onscreen together. They just dont seem a good matchup in reality, and even in the comic, it was more of a "who would win" scenario rather than anything having to do with real storyline.

Yaish · Intel Chief

From what is out already on the Wolverine movie Hulk isn't in it. Timeline is also wrong right now, as the Hulk is modern day and the Wolverine movie is a prequel, set 17 years before X-Men I think.

Another BIG problem for Marvel right now is that the X-Men and Spiderman characters aren't their properties when it comes to movie rights. They couldn't include any of those characters in a Marvel produced movie right now, unless they buy back the rights. Considering how $ucce$$ful those movies have been for their respective studios, I can't see them giving up the cash cow any time soon.

Anonymouse · Living impaired

It's not like there are plans of making any more Spider-man movies, right?

Yaish · Intel Chief

Sony paid Marvel to renew character rights, and they are working on a script. No word yet on actors, directors, or villians.

paul68 · Shaved Ape

Marvel retained a lot of control however in how the characters were handled in the movies.

Saw the Hulk. Better than the last one certainly. But I was disappointed in the cgi alot. Kept making it hard to suspend disbelief and stay into the movie. Liked it overall, but wouldn't put it ahead of either X1 or 2, or Spidey 1-2. The actors did very well, Tyler was better than I expected. General Ross kinda annoyed me, but otherwise, not bad.

And what was with Mr. Blues head? Foreshadowing of???????????

Raven · Google Meister

I personally would prefer they just leave Spider-man as a trilogy though because i fear any other director other than Sam Raimi taking it... he was the perfect geek for the job, and i just don't believe there could be anyone that would get as right as he did, but they have been clueing at 4 since 3 was still in works, so more than likely it will happen...

A Wolverine/Hulk tie-in wouldn't be a good idea, Hulk would easily be way too dominating to the movie, he's not really a character that can just have a couple minute cameo and you're done, he's more of someone who could pretty much dominate the story and quickly draw away from it actually being a Wolverine movie.

Yaish · Intel Chief

paul68 · Shaved Ape

Ah. Never followed Hulk like I did the Wolverine and X titles.

SilverLupin · Redneck Debutante

Just found a close up screen capture from the new hulk movie, which I loved, and found out just how much detail was put into the cgi.

I am still damn impressed. I just noticed they gave him stubble. Cool

So badass.

Yaish · Intel Chief

Nice capture. I just don't like the skin texture, could have been better. Loved the movie though.