In defense of The Hulk (2003).

[Benjamin Strange]

Why do people hate this film? After seeing the new Incredible Hulk (and not being very impressed), I went back and watched the first one with Eric Bana. Man, this was a pretty decent flick. It's edgy, has got loads of character development and plot, decent acting, a good story, and great casting. Methinks Eric Bana is a much better Bruce Banner than Ed Norton - he suits the quiet, bottled up scientist character better, and certainly looks more like his Hulk persona. Jennifer Connolly actually is a real character in this one, wheras Liv Tyler is pretty much wasted in the new version. Of course, Nick Nolte is perfectly over the top as Banner's father. I even liked the funky editing - it made me feel like I was watching a comic book.

So what gives? Why is this movie slagged so much? Ok, so it's a bit heavy on the talking and doesn't have enough smashing. So? The talking is what gives the smashing any real purpose. In fact, I like that the first Hulk would get so angry that he would become clumsy and would fall all over himself while he was smashing things to bits. Yeah, the CGI Hulk character wasn't great, but it wasn't terrible either (and at least he looks like Eric Bana, whereas the new Hulk doesn't remotely resemble Ed Norton). Maybe some people were put off by the multiple frames and weird editing, but at least Ang Lee was trying something interesting and different.

This new Hulk left me feeling a little disappointed that it wasn't as interesting as the last one. So I guess I'm a bit of a Hulk apologist.

[RWP]

It's not easy being green.

[HollowBassman]

Horrible CGI! Toy Story looked more realistic.

I don't have anything against using CGI, but if you can't make it look somewhat real, then you shouldn't do it.

[steve21]

For me it comes down to the fact that the Hulk has ALWAYS been my least favorite hero.

[v-12]

Originally Posted by HollowBassman

Horrible CGI! Toy Story looked more realistic.

I don't have anything against using CGI, but if you can't make it look somewhat real, then you shouldn't do it.

+1
the awful cgi completely ruined it for me.

[GregC]

I saw it in the theater and haven't seen it since, so my memory of it is fuzzy. I remember it was rather dull. I'm all for character development and trying different things, even in superhero movies--I'm not a nonstop-action junkie. But I don't think this movie was well-written. I remember a sequence with dogs that just seemed pointless, a setup for a bad CGI scene. I dunno, overall, it just didn't do anything for me.

[ric1312]

I liked the first one. Havn't see the second one just yet.

I actually liked the CGI. I think using a live actor would have looked stupid. I thought it looked pretty realistic given what were they were working with. I mean what is a green skin tone supposed to look like? I though the lou ferrigno green makeup looked downright stupid.

The first movies best scenes were the hulk smashing the tanks and escaping the underground bass.

The villians in the first movie IMO were really just horrible inventions. I havn't read hulk comic books since I was kid, but to my knowledge he turned into the hulk because he was exposed to gamma rays from something he invented, not because his father did something to him. I thought it was a very poor idea to reinvent the story, it just made it more complex, which wasn't needed.

The hulked up poodle..............cmon who thought that was a good idea.

His father turning into a monster was just stupid.

I'm hoping the villian in the second is more worthy.

Is the villian, "The Abomination?"

[Kyon`]

I liked the first one, but a number of things like the bad cgi. A bit of a tangent with some scenes didn't distract me. It seemed maybe if they kept it on the editing floor for a couple more months they would of came out with something better. Though I do like the idea they were trying to go with, just a bit more in depth then a smash em bash em sort of guy but I guess that's what sells. Though I always thought Jennifer Connelly was much more attractive then Liv Tyler .

[Benjamin Strange]

I don't get the bad CGI argument. I don't really think it looked bad at all - the only time it was awkward looking was when the Hulk was running. All the rest of the scenes were pretty much spot on.

I actually thought the CGI is worse in this new one. Perhaps it's the way it was filmed, but the new Hulk looks quite a bit more digital to my eyes. Plus he's got green teeth.

[funkometer]

Im so tired of remakes. Maybe in two or three more years theyll remake it again!

[DigMe]

I never saw the first one but I wanted to since it was directed by Ang Lee. Just never got around to it.

bc

[Mon Rominee]

I just thought that version was lacking in focus BECAUSE of the love story...I am into the human element and the battle of the monster within, and all that stuff, but on the whole it muddied up the story...I love Ang Lee's work, but don't think he maneuvered it well. And that whole jumping flying thing was too over the top.

And as I said before in the other thread....the hulk poodle. Well, the 3 hulked up dogs. So lame. Especially the poodle. Were the CGI artists so blinded by their paycheck that not one of them had the balls or at least the good sense to be honest and say "Ang, this is pretty lame"???

I won't be seeing the new one BECAUSE it seems too much like a "redemption" attempt for the lackluster response to prior one...and as has been intimated before, if all you can say is it "has more action than the previous HULK", then that imo is damning with faint praise, and not worthy of my money.

[JimS]

Originally Posted by RWP

It's not easy being green.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

.