thefonz on 16/6/2008 at 06:37
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
There are, in fact, already several movies made about it.
I'm assuming you're referring to those medical ones about those
"premature" moments?
We had to watch them in school to learn about those less fortunate than ourselves.
Anyway back to Hulk.
Scots Taffer on 17/6/2008 at 00:24
I've decided I'm not going to see it til DVD, pretty much every review I've read paints it as less entertaining/interesting than the Ang Lee version, which is what I suspected.
Queue on 17/6/2008 at 00:35
I'm still rooting for Godzilla 1985--
Mark my words, right up there with Citizen Kane and Gone With the Wind
Why does Hollywood insist upon recycling these same old horrendous stories? What's next, a bad 70's TV show about a white cop and black cop and a pimp--
Oh.
Well how about another bad 70's TV show about three women that are actually detectives working for some disembodied voice belong to a person whom they've never met, yet trust him implicitly.
Oh.
What about turning a comic book into--
DAMNIT!
P.S. the Lee version was actually quite good, I thought.
D'Juhn Keep on 17/6/2008 at 01:09
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I've decided I'm not going to see it til DVD, pretty much every review I've read paints it as less entertaining/interesting than the Ang Lee version, which is what I suspected.
Why even bother when you're so determined to not like it
Scots Taffer on 17/6/2008 at 01:27
I'm not determined to not like this movie per se (I was initially miffed that they were shitting all over the original but quickly got over it) but I am extremely judgemental of what I hear about preproduction and what footage I see, which helps determine whether or not I'll catch it in the cinema. I rarely see a bad movie in the cinema, take that for what it's worth.
And in the interests of full disclosure, because I did start the thread off after all, I reckon that it's just been a bad decision all around - just because comic book heroes are the new movie cash cow doesn't mean that we should disrespect a movie version not even a decade old by a bloody oscar-winning filmmaker. What's next? Remaking The Incredible Hulk if someone else comes along and decides it didn't "connect with the fans"?
Also, lol at Norton being annoyed they cut "an extra 70 minutes of footage" from the theatrical edition. Jesus. Everyone wants their movies to be long arduous LOTR journeys now?
Ko0K on 17/6/2008 at 02:34
As far as I know, most of what they got rid of in the cutting room was before and in between the action scenes. While character development and story-telling are crucial, having that much to cut in the first place means something went wrong on the story board.
To be fair, though, roughly two out of three people who watched the movie thought they liked what they saw, at least according to (
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_incredible_hulk/) one source. :/
SubJeff on 17/6/2008 at 07:03
The Radio 4 review was interesting. They thought it was more artsy than Ang Lee's version in parts, that the first half was very well done but that it just degenerated into a by the numbers actioner.
No real discussion on the alternate actors though, I guess that's just for us geeks to do.
Likely a DVD rental for me.
thefonz on 17/6/2008 at 07:22
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
... it just degenerated into a by the numbers actioner.
Well I am sorry, but DURRRRH! Of course it's a by-the-numbers actioner at teh end, its about a giant green monster - what the heck do you expect???
Oh wait, I know - your "ideal" ending would likely have been Hulk and Abomination sitting in Starbucks working out their differences over a latte - all very artsy and well acted.
No No NO! In a movie called HULK, i want to see monsters knocking all kinds of shit out of each other and the city they are in - fuck people who want it more "realistic, you guys piss the hell out of me.
Yeesh :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
SubJeff on 17/6/2008 at 16:50
I don't think you really know what "by the numbers" means, do you?
Schwaa2 on 17/6/2008 at 17:25
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Am I the only person who would probably enjoy a film done in the style of the TV show, instead of this uber-CGI'd/generic-hollywood-action-flick crap?
Makes 2 of us, I'd rather see the Lou Ferrigno vers of the hulk than the cheesy 4,000 pounds of testosterone vers. At least the TV show vers was believable that a body could mutate back and forth like that (with some imagination). But a regular man turning into 4,000 pound beast that could jump 12 miles in a single bound? Even superman couldn't do that. Geez.
