PDA

View Full Version : Incredible Hulk is going to SUCK



Heresy488
2008-06-08, 01:01 PM
Let me make two points before I announce WHY I think the Incredible Hulk will suck.

1. No one faulted the Hulk's (2003) special effects. Frankly, the special effects were awesome. The problem was the story was crap and the movie was stupid. But the CGI and such were all solid, if you're into CGI.

2. This Incredible Hulk (2008), all they're showing in the commercials is the special effects. It's the Hulk standing in a green field, attacked by a helicopter and then attacked by one guy with a grenade launcher who, even in movement-constricting body armor, can do back-flips and aerial somersaults with the best of them ><?!

Conclusion: This movie will be another CGI love-fest, just like it's predecessor. There is no evidence that the story, characters, or plot will be any more developed than the first movie. I sympathize with Edward Norton, he's a great actor, but dammit he isn't given any material to work with.

I think a fundamental problem with a movie about the Hulk is that there is very little material to work with. The guy is a mutant who becomes a juggernaut when he's angry. That's it. What can you do with that?

LET ME GUESS what the plot of the Incredible Hulk will be: Edward Norton gets blasted with Gamma radiation by accident. Somehow, the military-industrial complex (bad-guys) will find out and fall in love with the idea. They want to recreate the "accident" (which was no accident at all, but a test to see if the idea could work) refining the process to create a better Hulk.
And the movie will end with a confrontation between the two Hulks. Oh, and they'll throw in a love-story because that's the modus operandi after Spiderman (2002).

Innis Cabal
2008-06-08, 01:12 PM
Your entitled to your opinion. But what this movie wont have is the angst driven father angle that the first movie had, so, better from the start. What can be better then a simple beat the crap out of everything movie? Oh sure everyone wants plot, good acting(Norton -will- pull off Bruce) and some contrived story line that plays to their ideals and their desires, but really in truth, all the Hulk should be, will be, and has to be, is a violent action film with one single moral question imbeded into it. And that is, is what does anger truely accomplish.

Heresy488
2008-06-08, 01:20 PM
Negative.

That Hulk gains his powers through anger is inconsequential. He is a brute with infinite strength and durability. Superman has the same thing (and more) but does it without the angry bit.

If the moral of the story is that anger doesn't get you anywhere, then the plot will dictate that the Hulk, through his anger-inspired actions, will make every situation worse for having been a part of it. However, this is not true, Hulk is definitely a good guy (in spite of the collateral damage), and will use his powers for good. His anger will be an asset, just like it was in the comics, just like it was in the first movie, and just like it will be in this sequel.

A neat idea that can use for the story is a Jekyll and Hyde theme, where Edward Norton tries to do what good he can, but he has this monster on his back that screws everything up when it rears it's ugly head.

Mr.Silver
2008-06-08, 01:21 PM
LET ME GUESS what the plot of the Incredible Hulk will be: Edward Norton gets blasted with Gamma radiation by accident. Somehow, the military-industrial complex (bad-guys) will find out and fall in love with the idea. They want to recreate the "accident" (which was no accident at all, but a test to see if the idea could work) refining the process to create a better Hulk.
And the movie will end with a confrontation between the two Hulks. Oh, and they'll throw in a love-story because that's the modus operandi after Spiderman (2002).
Isn't most of this established in the comics anyway? Hulk's clashed with factions of the military before, Bruce has romantic feelings towards Penny Ross and the main villain of this film looks to be Abomination, aka a guy who tried to replicate the effects of Banner's Hulk accident on himself in the hopes of producing a more powerful end-result.
In that case, yeah it'd be predictable but only insofar as most adaptations try to follow the original source material.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-08, 01:27 PM
Negative.

That Hulk gains his powers through anger is inconsequential. He is a brute with infinite strength and durability. Superman has the same thing (and more) but does it without the angry bit.

If the moral of the story is that anger doesn't get you anywhere, then the plot will dictate that the Hulk, through his anger-inspired actions, will make every situation worse for having been a part of it. However, this is not true, Hulk is definitely a good guy (in spite of the collateral damage), and will use his powers for good. His anger will be an asset, just like it was in the comics, just like it was in the first movie, and just like it will be in this sequel.

A neat idea that can use for the story is a Jekyll and Hyde theme, where Edward Norton tries to do what good he can, but he has this monster on his back that screws everything up when it rears it's ugly head.

But that is how the comics are. He was sent away because he was uncontrolable by the illuminati. His planet was destroyed, his war came to naught. His whole back story is wrought with the evidence that anger may give you strength but it takes away so much more. Why does he never get the girl? Because deep down he is a monster and will hurt her. Why does no one trust him? Everytime he helps he destroys. He may be a hero, he may be a good guy, but he is a conflicted and often times misunderstood one.

The_JJ
2008-06-08, 01:27 PM
I'd just like to point out that at the start of the movie he's already the hulk, hiding in Africa or South America. Or Southeast Asia. Someplace.

Anyway, I guess their kinda trying to pick up where the last one leftt off, with new actors.

Heresy488
2008-06-08, 01:29 PM
Mr. Silver is right insofar as it is unfair to criticize a movie for being predictable when the movie makers are only trying to stay faithful to the original source material.

That being said, I'm still looking to be entertained with something beyond what I could make up myself. Battlestar Galactica isn't anything new, but they manage to keep the show going and fans excited. Even if Hulk will be predictable, I'm still looking to get my $9 bucks worth.

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-08, 01:29 PM
Uh. There's actually a lot of material to go off of. I know that I don't even read the comic books.

The thing about Bruce Banner being abused being the source for the Hulk wasn't something they just pulled out from nowhere.


The Hulk's origins, came from Stan Lee's interpretation of Frankenstein. As he saw it, the monster just wanted to be left alone, it was the Humans who were the real monsters. Regardless of if that's accurate or not, that's what the start of the Hulk was. And he got stronger the madder he got.

Then, weird stuff started happening. Some of it good, some of it bad. The Hulk has kind of turned into a psychic entity. I think it's always kind of been there, but not something that was really thought about until fairly recently.


Again, I don't read the Comics. (Most of this I got from the Wikipedia)


I'm actually one of the few people who didn't hate the Hulk movie (I suspect this is where I start getting the venom thrown at me). It wasn't perfect, but I didn't think it was as terrible as everyone else seemed to. Sure it was full of Angst, but this is the Hulk we're talking about. It's the point.

Could have used more smashing, but they could never have had enough smashing ^_^.


I know radiation sounds like something dumb to give a person super powers, but with the Hulk it works. There's something elemental about both radiation, and the Hulk. Either leave the radiation alone, and invoke The Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) or make up some new kind of radiation.

But really, the character works best without scientific explanation.


edit: Super Ninja'd!


I took the theme of the Hulk to be, if they just left him alone, there wouldn't so much collateral damage. But there's so many people who just can't leave him alone. The army which only comes along and makes things worse, and people who naively think they can control it. Including Bruce Banner himself, (though he arguably has some success in this).

While "anger gets you nothing" could be a theme, that doesn't address the fact that he has some pretty legitimate reasons to be angry. Seems a lot of people never bother trying to talk to the guy, they have too much ego for that. And because of that, people die.

The Hulk can't control himself, and Bruce feels terrible for what he does. But for his antagonists? It's all acceptable losses. If he's killed here, then it's okay because then they won't have another fight where they cause tremendous collateral damage again. He must be stopped by any means necessary, and there is only one means. Force.


Maybe the army should try sending out fluffy plains and tanks, and having the soldiers playing with kittens. It'd be pretty effective. (Which is probably why it doesn't happen :P Not much story then.)

Mr. Scaly
2008-06-08, 02:10 PM
Question. How come it's generally agreed that the first Hulk movie sucked? I didn't really like it because of the annoying camera effects but it was full of entertaining HULK SMASH!!!

VanBuren
2008-06-08, 02:18 PM
Question. How come it's generally agreed that the first Hulk movie sucked? I didn't really like it because of the annoying camera effects but it was full of entertaining HULK SMASH!!!

Because they had too much talking and not enough smashing in the first one (also because the talking they replaced the extra smashing with wasn't good enough to justify the lack of extra smashing).

The Extinguisher
2008-06-08, 02:21 PM
Four Words (Obvious Trope) : Never Trust a Trailer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverTrustATrailer)

MrEdwardNigma
2008-06-08, 02:38 PM
Allright, do you want to know my opinion on this? Probably not, but I'm going to give it to you anyways.

Any movie where the villain is an evil version of the hero automatically sucks.

As for the CGI in Hulk 1, I didn't like it one bit.

Thank you.

Icewalker
2008-06-08, 03:01 PM
I'd like to say that I saw that trailer, it was totally special effects focused, and that is correct.

Except the other trailers are different. They show essences of plot, characters with character, and some interesting actiony stuff that isn't Hulk smash. I'm going to stick with my opinion of it as Hulk: the Hopefully not Sucky Edition.

Griemont
2008-06-08, 03:29 PM
I vastly preferred the look of the first Hulk to this one; otherwise it doesn't seem too bad. I liked Eric Bana in the first movie, though.

Xuincherguixe
2008-06-08, 03:48 PM
Question. How come it's generally agreed that the first Hulk movie sucked?

I thought it was because people thought it was too angsty.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-08, 03:52 PM
I thought it was because people thought it was too angsty.

Thats the reason. People didnt want a back story, they wanted HULK SMASH. They got HULK CRY, and then some SMASH, and then alot more CRY, then at the end, SMASH.

Skyrocket
2008-06-08, 04:17 PM
I think the movie will be better than the last one. It looks like they're going to take a page or two from the old TV show which I think is a pretty good idea. The show was fun and is the way a lot of people know the Hulk.

StickMan
2008-06-08, 04:24 PM
I vastly preferred the look of the first Hulk to this one; otherwise it doesn't seem too bad. I liked Eric Bana in the first movie, though.

I just have to ask how so. The Hulk from the fist movie was so far from what the Hulk has ever been. He was 5 feet taller and 500 pounds heaver than the source material says he should have been. I'm much happier with the new look.

Over all this movie looks like it will have a better story than the last one.

Twin2
2008-06-08, 04:29 PM
and then attacked by one guy with a grenade launcher who, even in movement-constricting body armor, can do back-flips and aerial somersaults with the best of them ><?!

Spoilers ahoy


That would be the effects of the super soldier serum, or at least something of that nature.

Verruckt
2008-06-08, 05:50 PM
Let me make two points before I announce WHY I think the Incredible Hulk will suck.

1. No one faulted the Hulk's (2003) special effects. Frankly, the special effects were awesome. The problem was the story was crap and the movie was stupid. But the CGI and such were all solid, if you're into CGI.

2. This Incredible Hulk (2008), all they're showing in the commercials is the special effects. It's the Hulk standing in a green field, attacked by a helicopter and then attacked by one guy with a grenade launcher who, even in movement-constricting body armor, can do back-flips and aerial somersaults with the best of them ><?!

Conclusion: This movie will be another CGI love-fest, just like it's predecessor. There is no evidence that the story, characters, or plot will be any more developed than the first movie. I sympathize with Edward Norton, he's a great actor, but dammit he isn't given any material to work with.

I think a fundamental problem with a movie about the Hulk is that there is very little material to work with. The guy is a mutant who becomes a juggernaut when he's angry. That's it. What can you do with that?

LET ME GUESS what the plot of the Incredible Hulk will be: Edward Norton gets blasted with Gamma radiation by accident. Somehow, the military-industrial complex (bad-guys) will find out and fall in love with the idea. They want to recreate the "accident" (which was no accident at all, but a test to see if the idea could work) refining the process to create a better Hulk.
And the movie will end with a confrontation between the two Hulks. Oh, and they'll throw in a love-story because that's the modus operandi after Spiderman (2002).

You mean like when all they fed him was "play a troubled urbanite with insomnia" or "play a king with a leprosy" or "play a skinhead rape victim" or "play a hippie in a rhino suit". Norton is nothing if not creative, trust me. And yes, we can hurl aspersions at a movie based on 60 seconds of flashing lights meant to draw in your average American (read: idiot). Or we can make balanced judgments based on what previous information we have about the actor's body of work.

If Edward Norton is good at anything, it's taking a character with schizophrenia a making a drop dead awesome movie. Hulk = Schizophrenia Paragon.

Lord_Asmodeus
2008-06-08, 06:04 PM
I'm just mad they're remaking it as opposed to making a sequel. I mean, its bad enough that they remake classics, but come ON, how long has it been since The Incredible Hulk came out? a couple years? At least wait until the SFX have improved so that when you shove the remake full of them it actually seems like a difference... :smallsigh:

Innis Cabal
2008-06-08, 06:08 PM
It is actually a sort of sequel. It begins with Banner being the Hulk, no extra scenes ploughing through that part of the story we all know.

Dryken
2008-06-08, 06:10 PM
Yeah, because transformers was a masterful piece of cinema that didn't rely too much on cgi eye candy at all.

Just seeing a lot of CGI in the trailer doesn't really do much on my opinion of the film anymore. There was a time when CGI was originally called "special effects" because they were special and only used on a minimal level.

Now everything is CGI because movie execs and computer animators like comparing the size of their metaphorical johnsons with how cool things look.

And come on...an action movie about a giant green guy destroying everything that attacks him and is in his direction? SO much cheaper to have it all CGI. The gamma radiation alone would cost a couple of million and no one has wanted to be covered in paint since the tin man died of led poisoning.

See what happens. It might be a predictable story, but that's just the formula of a marvel comic movie. Iron Man pretty much has the same premise ("normal person has something exciting happen to them, they become super-humanish, a close friend betrays them and tries to repeat the process, it works and they battle, hero lives to fight another day"). What you'd want to look out for, however, is the acting and the internal struggles. I think Banner on his quest to be a very very calm person all the time would be pretty groovy.

bosssmiley
2008-06-08, 06:26 PM
You mean like when all they fed him was "play a troubled urbanite with insomnia" or "play a king with a leprosy" or "play a skinhead rape victim" or "play a hippie in a rhino suit". Norton is nothing if not creative, trust me. And yes, we can hurl aspersions at a movie based on 60 seconds of flashing lights meant to draw in your average American (read: idiot). Or we can make balanced judgments based on what previous information we have about the actor's body of work.

If Edward Norton is good at anything, it's taking a character with schizophrenia a making a drop dead awesome movie. Hulk = Schizophrenia Paragon.

QFT. I love all the Ed Norton films you cited above. In fact, with the exception of the abominable "Italian Job" remake I cannot think of a bad Ed Norton film.

So long as it's better than Ang Lee's "Crouching Banner, Hidden Hulky" effort the 2008 HULK film should rock. Come on! This is the guy who did "American History X" and "Fight Club"; he has prior form in the tortured hero stakes.

Oh, and on the subject of the comics "Planet Hulk" is teh win. A super-powered Conan-esque bildungsroman where our hero holds a crumbling world together with his bare hands. :smallcool:

JadedDM
2008-06-08, 07:36 PM
Robert Downey Jr. is going to cameo in this movie as Tony Stark. That about makes me want to see this for that alone.

The reason they are remaking the Hulk is it's part of Marvel's "Avenger Initiative" that they mentioned at the very end of Iron Man. They're making separate movies of each member of the Avengers (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Nick Fury, and Antman) and then putting them all together in an Avengers movie.

Dervag
2008-06-08, 11:15 PM
In general, I would like to say that if you think this movie is going to suck, you shouldn't watch it. Yes, it's fairly predictable- we know about what it's going to contain. And since you know what it will be, if you loathe and despise what it will be don't watch it. You have been duly warned.


If the moral of the story is that anger doesn't get you anywhere, then the plot will dictate that the Hulk, through his anger-inspired actions, will make every situation worse for having been a part of it. However, this is not true, Hulk is definitely a good guy (in spite of the collateral damage), and will use his powers for good. His anger will be an asset, just like it was in the comics, just like it was in the first movie, and just like it will be in this sequel.I should point out that in the comics, the smartest heroes of the Marvel world came to the conclusion that the only safe thing to do for Earth was to blast Hulk into space to a distant planet, then explode the spaceship with some kind of super-nuke. Just to make sure he couldn't come back.

Then he came back. And hoo boy was he MAD.

So right now, in the comics it is not at all clear that his anger is an asset, because he did so much collateral damage that they were tempted to blast him into space, decided to do so- and then he came back and did even MORE collateral damage.

Verruckt
2008-06-08, 11:43 PM
Robert Downey Jr. is going to cameo in this movie as Tony Stark. That about makes me want to see this for that alone.

The reason they are remaking the Hulk is it's part of Marvel's "Avenger Initiative" that they mentioned at the very end of Iron Man. They're making separate movies of each member of the Avengers (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Captain America, Nick Fury, and Antman) and then putting them all together in an Avengers movie.

And you know what Mr. Jackson as Fury means...
Ultimates Avengers! (oh please oh please oh please)

kpenguin
2008-06-09, 12:25 AM
And you know what Mr. Jackson as Fury means...
Ultimates Avengers! (oh please oh please oh please)

I doubt it.

More likely they'll make something of a mix between the two, mostly 616-stuff.

Iron Man's story is more in line with the original than the Ultimate.

Griffinwarrior
2008-07-07, 12:14 PM
I'd just like to point out that at the start of the movie he's already the hulk, hiding in Africa or South America. Or Southeast Asia. Someplace.

Anyway, I guess their kinda trying to pick up where the last one leftt off, with new actors.

Actually, it's in new mexico, and they didn't really think 2003's version was a hit either, so they're pretending the first movie didn't happen

Verruckt
2008-07-07, 02:32 PM
Ach, who cast thread resurrection? Anyway, having seen the movie I have to say I loved it, especially the final fight with Abomination. It had such visceral momentum that you entirely forget it's CG and just say "Wow, that looked like it hurt". It honestly made me think of what two Primarchs in a fist fight should look like.

Indon
2008-07-07, 04:12 PM
Actually, it's in new mexico, and they didn't really think 2003's version was a hit either, so they're pretending the first movie didn't happen

Not so much - this Hulk is a sequel plot-wise - they're just retconning the Hulk's power (and a lot of the details) back to a more source-based level.

I really liked the movie. The action was nice, and the plot was very good too.

Prophaniti
2008-07-07, 04:27 PM
Well, OP, I understand your pessimistic outlook after the suckfest of the last Hulk movie. Turns out that you couldn't have been more wrong. It was awesome, I loved every single thing about it. It was like 'Thank you, God! They finally got the Hulk right!'. Great stuff. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, especially if you liked Iron Man, go see it.

Talya
2008-07-07, 11:57 PM
Well, OP, I understand your pessimistic outlook after the suckfest of the last Hulk movie. Turns out that you couldn't have been more wrong. It was awesome, I loved every single thing about it. It was like 'Thank you, God! They finally got the Hulk right!'. Great stuff. Anyone who hasn't seen it yet, especially if you liked Iron Man, go see it.

This!

Almost, but not quite as good as Iron Man.

Super_mad09
2008-07-09, 07:30 AM
But the hulk is just a huge brocoli mutating growing arms and legs having it's own face and it gets strength because it's a vegetable of course and it turns mad all the time and becomes destructive because most people don't like eating it and other vegetables that's why it's realy mad but my favorite vegetable is brocoli that's why it dosen't mutate at my table at home :smallbiggrin:lol!. hoy this is just a joke

Emperor Ing
2008-07-09, 07:33 AM
I thought the movie was pretty dissapointing. There were no suprises, and the storyline was extremely cliche'd. :smallannoyed:

Jack Squat
2008-07-09, 09:02 AM
I thought the movie was pretty dissapointing. There were no suprises, and the storyline was extremely cliche'd. :smallannoyed:

It's the Hulk...how much variation and suprises can there be?

I went into it to see if Edward Norton could pull off the character, and to see The Hulk smash things. I wasn't dissapointed. I'd actually put it in the top 5 movies of the year so far.

SAMAS
2008-07-09, 01:53 PM
I doubt it.

More likely they'll make something of a mix between the two, mostly 616-stuff.

Iron Man's story is more in line with the original than the Ultimate.

Well, they're not doing Ultimate per se, but yeah, they're gearing up for Avengers sometime around 2010-2012. But they got Iron Man II, Cap, and Thor planned first.