Comments on: Is It Possible 'Hulk' 2008 Could Do Worse Than 'Hulk' 2003?

By: Ziemer90

Ziemer90 — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:49:25 +0000

well all we can do is wait and see i thought from what i saw from the teaser that the CGI looked good but other than that i wont judge anything else i hope its good and i have faith that Norton will pull this roll off since he wrote it (but there is always death to smootchy hanging in my mind) but i think the movie will be good, nothing groundbreaking that Batman Begins was but good. One thing i really hope though is that it touches on the dark parts of the hulk

By: melsgirl

melsgirl — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:58:51 +0000

I agree RaTTleR_NL, Bishop, Cable and Avengers would be great additions to the comic hero movie realm. I would anxiously await (stand in line) for any of these to hit the theaters. And, I am exhaustively awaiting Dark Knight, while I'm still not real sure Iron Man is on my MUST SEE list – mainly because I have a hard time seeing Downey as Stark; however, I generally lean more towards going. Cuz? Well, it's a comic hero, it reminds me of Saturday morning cartoons from my childhood, and what better way to spend an extended midday lunch hour from work.

Ah, but back to Hulk, since it is the thread's topic…
I actually have a difficult time picturing Edward Norton as Banner. He's a talented actor, but I just don't see him in this role. Anyway, it's probably more like Ziemer90 states… "Hulk" sells so they want to play it safe and go with something that will make money
Sounds pretty clear to me.

And, YES – bradbrevet – Sin City definitely counts [great movie, one of THE best in 2005, and great comic]!

By: RaTTleR_NL

RaTTleR_NL — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:01:31 +0000

I am a big Marvel fan and have been reading their comic books for years (can even say decades) and I really liked Hulk 2003. Reading the comments here I can see I'm not alone. Why did it get so many negative reactions? What was so wrong with it according to the 'critics'?

As melsgirl points out Jennifer Connelly and especially Eric Bana made it a good one to watch.
If you look at the Hulk history from the comic book, Banner was a tortured soul because of the result of the accident. Losing control (in some form or another) is one of mans biggest fears. Now mr. Norton has to be more of a hero type as Banner.
It was the human aspect that made the Hulk and Spiderman comics so popular. Ordinary people with real emotions and fears who find themselves in extraordinary situations. Eric portrayed that so well and as he showed even much much more in Troy, he's a fantastic actor.
I'm carefully curious what Ed can do with the character when Eric is still so fresh in my memory.

Following the crowd I'm allso eagerly awaiting Iron Man and The Dark Knight.
But to answer your question melsgirl, yes. There are legions of comic book character in the Marvel universe alone to make movies of.
Maybe Captain America could get a new movie (if you've seen the first one, he needs it) and may I suggest Bishop (x-men), Black Panther, Cable, Avengers (good follow up for Iron Man) or anything with Apocalypse or Thanos because a good superhero movie needs a great supervillain.

By: bradbrevet

bradbrevet — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:14:01 +0000

Ziemer90 said: good point but i think its because they already know that "Hulk" sells

That's the big question… Will it sell? As cool as I think the Hulk is on a visual level, I am not sure how easy he will be to build a franchise around. People were already turned off by the human conflict in Lee's film, but I wonder if they will be interested in the new version more which seems like it will be more of an all out smash fest. There is a delicate balance that needs to be reached, but it may be too hard to do.

However, when it comes to comic films, Dark Knight is definitely top on my list, but Iron Man is a close second.

And "melsgirl" nice to have you around! As for your question, I really don't know comics until they are made. I have actually never read a comic book. :( Unless the Sin City novels count?

By: Ziemer90

Ziemer90 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:18:22 +0000

good point but i think its because they already know that "Hulk" sells so they want to play it safe and go with something that will make money (not sure if enough) but that will make money rather than a new comic book film but hopefully that changes

By: melsgirl

melsgirl — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:02:30 +0000

I'm new to posting comments, so forgive me if I end up rambling too much… The first Hulk film was good by most standards, not if you compare it to Xmen (1 & 2) or Batman Begins. That said, I still find myself watching it whenever it comes on, I think it's mainly due to Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly, without them the movie would have been much much worse. Regarding the new Hulk; which I don't understand the reasoning for the remake, why isn't it a sequel instead of a "redo"? Edward Norton is a very talented actor, so I can see that the new version should do well; but, bottomline, I don't see it doing "better" then the last one. Question: Aren't there enough comic characters [new and old] to make movies, rather than remaking something recent?

By: Ziemer90

Ziemer90 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:41:34 +0000

i agree on the ending with the hat turning green and such not a fan. but i also agree alot with norton leading the film on and also writting it and to be honest having tim roth brins a smile to my face as well because he can play a good bad guy (the only thing i liked in 2001 planet of the apes) and having downey jr in iron man was another thing that made me smile when i first read it. im most interested in the dark knight and have been since they first said it was being made but the main reason im interested in all these films is because of what they could be and i hope they are what i hope they will be

By: bradbrevet

bradbrevet — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:06:37 +0000

Don't mind long posts at all Ziemer and happy to see a new face in the comments.

I agree, Hulk 2003 didn't bother me all that much either. I think we can all pretty much agree the ending was pretty bad, but for some reason I look at it as a guilty pleasure. My main interest in the new film is the Edward Norton factor, I love the guy as an actor and like Downey in Iron Man, the mere fact they are involved makes them that much more intriguing.

By: Ziemer90

Ziemer90 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:47:19 +0000

I have been reading your wesite for a few years and i love it i think its a very well done site. But to the point i enjoyed the 2003 hulk film thought it ran a little long for most people but to me i didnt mind it and i didnt mine the CGI either in a world with shit CGI but this one i am looking forward to seeing it but im going into it with an open mind because i remember reading that they view this kinda as Batman Begins with no relation to 2003 hulk so i will view this just as another story not a follow up. As for what neo said about speed racer theres no harm in being excited for a movie best thing about movies are sometimes you go to just have fun and speed racer looks like a good time. so yeah hope you dont mind the long post take care

By: bradbrevet

bradbrevet — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:07:25 +0000

Ahhhh, the typical Internet comment… I am not sure why you are targeting me with your comment, I was just relaying what was said in the article. As for what you said, I am actually looking forward to Speed Racer and I also gave Lee's Hulk a positive review both in theaters and on DVD.

By: NeoPoliticus

NeoPoliticus — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:58:23 +0000

Hulk 2003 was a brilliant film that did not do as well as it should because it didn't pander to its most juvenile audience members by starting off with enough gratuitous violence. I expect Brevet's favorite film this year will be Speed Racer. Too bad that most eight year olds will find it too juvenile for them.