Yuku | Edward Norton is THE HULK - Coming Soon - Tomorrow's Classics - Classic Horror Film Board

0 Kudo

New Topic

Edward Norton is THE HULK

Author	Comment
Jeffrey Allen Rydell		#141	[-]
(05/05/08 10:47 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	HalLane wrote: I honestly don't think I'd bury my schnoz in any other set of pecs if I could help it. Robert Paulson will be so disappointed to hear that... - Jeff
HalLane		#142	[-]
(05/05/08 11:04 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Yeah, that's kinda what it looked like with me and Lou. Oops, but I forgot .... ....you don't talk about Hulk club.
Joe Karlosi		#143	[-]
(05/06/08 8:01 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	HalLane wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: he was never that tremendous when next to a human in the comics. Jeepers, Joe, this isn't a comic book -- IT'S A MOVIE! Sorry to shout but really, I should think it's obvious. I get the idea that many of the comic books you've been referring to were drawn before the INCREDIBLE HULK tv show became a pop culture staple. The Hulk was played there by a 6'4" muscleman in green greasepaint. Now what happens if you create a cgi Hulk that's 7 feet tall instead of 9 feet tall? You have a green muscleman that's only 8" taller than a muscleman in green greasepaint. Just because it's a movie, why should the Hulk be rendered so differently when it isn't a requirement? I don't get that. I just don't think it's necessary to have an animated CGI Hulk at all. I'll take the real guy in greasepaint any day. If they like, they can make a real actor CG-d into looking somewhat larger. And I think movies have progressed enough these days to the point where an actor painted up green can look more authentic. Certainly more authentic than that cartoon thing, at any rate. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
Joe Karlosi		#144	[-]
(05/06/08 8:08 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Oldmanster wrote: And I'm sure the studio execs will rush right out and make the appropriate changes based on your rage, Joe. Life's too short to bother with a few extra inches and a lack of vocal ability. The film will either work due to a good story, or it won't. The devil in this case is not in the details. Reed, first - I've been meaning to ask you for some time now -- what's up with all the odd spacings in your posts lately? Hulk hopes everything okay with Reed. re: the Hulk Movie -- I never said I expect studio execs to bow to me. However, we're allowed here to voice our reservations and opinions over proposed details about a film. It's done regularly, and not always or only by me. But you'd think the studios would have learned already after that awful Ang Lee movie. After all, it's rather odd to be starting from scratch on another film, only a few mere years after they'd just attempted one. I can't see a good story being made if the Hulk is just reduced to a roaring beast without any personality or emotion and sympathy. That's why I have such reservations -- the Hulk is not as one dimensional as that, and I want the opportunity for a more involved storyline and characterization. Carl wrote: Did you read the article linked above? It was confirmed that Lou Ferrigno is voicing the Hulk and had dialogue. They mentioned grunts, growls, and the "Hulk smash" variety of vocabulary. Well, that's a start. Even in the last film there was the brief moment where Hulk said "puny human" (in a cheat dream sequence, I believe). But it wasn't enough to just toss a couple words in. I hope it goes farther than saying just "Hulk Smash!" here and there between growls. We'll see. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!" Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi 05/06/08 8:30 AM. Edited 7 times.
oldmanster		#145	[-]
(05/06/08 8:40 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Just because it's a movie, why should the Hulk be rendered so differently when it isn't a requirement? I can feel your pain, Joe. I just hate it when a Marvel character is portrayed with his eyebrows grown together when they should be separate. Reed, first - I've been meaning to ask you for some time now -- what's up with all the odd spacings in your posts lately? Hulk hopes everything okay with Reed. Hulk obviously knows nothing about Yuku quirks. Neither does Reed. He goes with flow, but can see how spacing can cause Hulk concern. ... Reed
Joe Karlosi		#146	[-]
(05/06/08 8:47 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I can feel your pain, Joe. I just hate it when a Marvel character is portrayed with his eyebrows grown together when they should be separate. I think there's a significant difference in complaining about eyebrows and not having the Hulk communicate and become an emotionally sympathetic character we may feel for, thus helping the story. If the Hulk was less gigantic in size it would also help the relation to the human characters like Betty Ross, as in the comic. All the same, it didn't stop some Fantastic Four Fans from wanting The Thing's brow to be more like it was in the comics. Hulk obviously knows nothing about Yuku quirks. Neither does Reed. He goes with flow, but can see how spacing can cause Hulk concern. Yuku is certainly quirky, no doubt about that. I'm just wondering why it only happens for some members' posts? Makes Hulk's head hurt. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
oldmanster		#147	[-]
(05/06/08 5:44 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I think there's a significant difference in complaining about eyebrows and not having the Hulk communicate and become an emotionally sympathetic character we may feel for, thus helping the story. I don't. But I guess wars have been fought over sillier things (if there are sillier things). If the Hulk was less gigantic in size it would also help the relation to the human characters like Betty Ross, as in the comic. I always thought Betty was pretty happy with Hulk's gigantic size. Made it easier for her to keep her eyes at his waist level (or below). ... Reed
Joe Karlosi		#148	[-]
(05/06/08 6:08 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	oldmanster wrote: I think there's a significant difference in complaining about eyebrows and not having the Hulk communicate and become an emotionally sympathetic character we may feel for, thus helping the story. I don't. But I guess wars have been fought over sillier things (if there are sillier things). Well, for starters, it's sillier for you to get so worked up over my objections here (or perhaps the griping over The Thing's brow is sillier?). But Reed -- didn't you begin by stating that you felt story was what really mattered? So I'd have to guess a more personable and emotional Hulk characterization would be deemed an asset for you in helping to achieve that goal. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!" Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi 05/06/08 6:13 PM. Edited 1 times.
Doctor Lamont		#149	[-]
(05/06/08 7:46 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	So I'd have to guess a more personable and emotional Hulk characterization would be deemed an asset for you in helping to achieve that goal. I'd rather see a mean Hulk and a personable and emotional Bruce Banner. I always thought the Jekyll-Hyde element was the most interesting. Hulk is not a nice guy, but he still ends up being the hero because Banner is a hero.
oldmanster		#150	[-]
(05/06/08 7:49 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Well, for starters, it's sillier for you to get so worked up over my objections here (or perhaps the griping over The Thing's brow is sillier?). To paraphrase Forrest Gump: "Silly is as silly does," or words to that effect. Who's worked up? I just think you're being silly. My reference to The Thing was an illustration of silliness that is quite comparable to the issue of the Hulk's size and the origin of the Joker's skin pigmentation. But Reed -- didn't you begin by stating that you felt story was what really mattered? So I'd have to guess a more personable and emotional Hulk characterization would be deemed an asset for you in helping to achieve that goal. You have the gist of my comment, but as usual you twist it to fit your argument by "guessing" instead of asking. A more personable and emotional Hulk is less fulfilling as far as story goes than the emotional havoc the transformation wreaks on Bruce Banner (in that respect, Eric Bana did a pretty good job) coupled with the rest of the plot conflict points that make up an entire story. Three or four or twelve or twenty inches doesn't matter squat as far as "personable and emotional Hulk characterization." At least not to me. ... Reed
Ebola13		#151	[-]
(05/06/08 9:32 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Saw the trailer last night at Iron Man! ...and was not really impressed. Hope its good but I'm not holding my breath. I suppose being a fan of the Ang Lee version I have built in bias to this new version. Norton can be very good when he wants to but I just don't see him as Bruce Banner. The one upside might be Tim Roth as the villain.
Wich2		#152	[-]
(05/06/08 10:36 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I guess I'm in the minority, but I always was MUCH more interested in the Hulk than in Banner - just as I was in Thor, rather than Don Blake. The era I followed the book the most, Ol' Greenskin was the star. I guess that's another reason the Bixby series never clicked for me. And to be a lead character that way, the Big Guy has to be able to express himself - or whatcha got, basically, is another Devil Dinosaur. Hey - continuing the Jekyll/Hyde concept: that one sure would be gutted, if Edward was mute. Best, -Craig W.
Joe Karlosi		#153	[-]
(05/07/08 6:30 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Wich2 wrote: I guess I'm in the minority, but I always was MUCH more interested in the Hulk than in Banner - Absolutely! The character of Bruce Banner as in the comic book was always extremely DULL. I don't think most people who are "ok" with this new film are even considering the original comics. Maybe they can say that it was the Hulk who was a big bore in the Bixby TV show, and that's largely because -- as I've said -- he was reduced to a snarling and growling non-entity! When reading the comics it was always drudgery when Bruce was Bruce... a very undeveloped and uninteresting nebbish of a character. But when he was stressed out in any way (and that did not just mean "angered") he would become the misfit Hulk, and the speaking and sensitive Hulk who was trapped in a world he never asked to be in had more personality than Banner. That's the way a successful storyline would need to be in a proper film, IMO. Doctor Lamont said: I'd rather see a mean Hulk and a personable and emotional Bruce Banner. I always thought the Jekyll-Hyde element was the most interesting. Hulk is not a nice guy, but he still ends up being the hero because Banner is a hero. Yes, Hulk was basically a nice guy -- that is, "Hulk is Hulk". He's just what he is, doesn't really mean to get in anyone's way or cause havoc, but people always fear and hound him and won't leave him the hell alone, so he can get pissed. That's the entire essence of the character, not some fiendish killing machine or something. In the comics, he's more like the Frankenstein Monster from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, which I think is a very appropriate analogy. Think of it like that. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!" Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi 05/07/08 6:34 AM. Edited 2 times.
Joe Karlosi		#154	[-]
(05/07/08 6:41 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	oldmanster wrote: Who's worked up? Well, you took the liberty of referring to what you called my "rage", so I figured I'd return the favor. I'm no more full of "rage" than you are. You have the gist of my comment, but as usual you twist it to fit your argument by "guessing" instead of asking. A more personable and emotional Hulk is less fulfilling as far as story goes than the emotional havoc the transformation wreaks on Bruce Banner (in that respect, Eric Bana did a pretty good job) coupled with the rest of the plot conflict points that make up an entire story. Three or four or twelve or twenty inches doesn't matter squat as far as "personable and emotional Hulk characterization." At least not to me. But you're completely leaving aside the issue of the articulate Hulk, which in the long run I've said is definitely more important than just his size factor. That's what I'm referring to when I say it would help the story. The Hulk is a bore in the Bixby show because he's reduced to a snarling and non-communicative creature; but in the comics, he's more like the misunderstood Monster in BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. Okay, maybe the new movie can help develop the character of Banner as more interesting, but he's always been rather uninteresting, and it's the Hulk we want to see. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
Omega Man		#155	[-]
(05/07/08 6:50 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Joe Karlosi wrote: I just don't think it's necessary to have an animated CGI Hulk at all. I'll take the real guy in greasepaint any day. And you'd be sitting virtually alone in the theater. A modern movie version of The Hulk without using CGI? Guaranteed box office poison. "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Doctor Lamont		#156	[-]
(05/07/08 4:44 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Yes, Hulk was basically a nice guy -- that is, "Hulk is Hulk". He's just what he is, doesn't really mean to get in anyone's way or cause havoc, but people always fear and hound him and won't leave him the hell alone, so he can get pissed. That's the entire essence of the character, not some fiendish killing machine or something. It depends which version of the character you are talking about. The original Hulk was more like the later Mr. Fixit version, only without all the gangster trappings. Early in the series Banner built a machine that triggered the transformations, and the Hulk had Banner's mind, though with a more limited vocabulary and a darker personality. As the series progressed the Hulk became increasingly violent and Banner had less and less control over him. He was never a fiendish killing machine,but he wasn't the misunderstood monster he later became. This early Hulk plotted with the Sub-Mariner to destroy the Avengers, and, while he would go to the trouble to save the lives of innocent people, like those on the train in Avengers 1, he seemed really to enjoy inflicting brutal punishment on anyone who crossed him. He was more Mr. Hyde than Karloff style Frankenstein, though he looked a lot more like the latter, especially when drawn by Kirby.
Joe Karlosi		#157	[-]
(05/07/08 4:46 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Omega Man wrote: Joe Karlosi wrote: I just don't think it's necessary to have an animated CGI Hulk at all. I'll take the real guy in greasepaint any day. And you'd be sitting virtually alone in the theater. A modern movie version of The Hulk without using CGI? Guaranteed box office poison. I disagree on both points. For one thing, I'm not the only one who despises this new CGI Hulk. For another, I'd bet the same thing was said about The Thing, and it didn't hurt the FF films at all to have the character portrayed by a real actor (hey --- a real actor --- imagine that!). It is VERY disconcerting to hear so many older and seasoned moviegoers giving a free pass to CGI cartoon characters in modern movies. Okay, so CG can often be a fine tool for SFX and all of that ... but when it comes to replacing the actual actors onscreen? Bah. Having said that, it turned out that the CG Hulk in the Ang Lee film wasn't even what I disliked about that movie; it was the weak storyline and making the Hulk so one dimensional. So as much as I'm against another CGI Hulk, I'd deal with it if it was faithful enough to the character in the comics. ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!" Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi 05/07/08 4:48 PM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#158	[-]
(05/07/08 4:57 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	Doctor Lamont wrote: Yes, Hulk was basically a nice guy -- that is, "Hulk is Hulk". He's just what he is, doesn't really mean to get in anyone's way or cause havoc, but people always fear and hound him and won't leave him the hell alone, so he can get pissed. That's the entire essence of the character, not some fiendish killing machine or something. It depends which version of the character you are talking about. The original Hulk was more like the later Mr. Fixit version, only without all the gangster trappings. Early in the series Banner built a machine that triggered the transformations, and the Hulk had Banner's mind, though with a more limited vocabulary and a darker personality. As the series progressed the Hulk became increasingly violent and Banner had less and less control over him. He was never a fiendish killing machine,but he wasn't the misunderstood monster he later became. This early Hulk plotted with the Sub-Mariner to destroy the Avengers, and, while he would go to the trouble to save the lives of innocent people, like those on the train in Avengers 1, he seemed really to enjoy inflicting brutal punishment on anyone who crossed him. He was more Mr. Hyde than Karloff style Frankenstein, though he looked a lot more like the latter, especially when drawn by Kirby. I guess people see things differently. I'm not sure if you're referring mostly to the TALES TO ASTONISH stories? I'm judging, I guess, basically from the period of the '60s and '70s, when he had his own book. The Hulk I am fond of, and which I feel has the most potential for a good multi-layered story for this character, was indeed more like the Karloff monster from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN... I also recall stories of the Hulk retaining Banner's mind while Bruce would change into the Hulk at will... but I'm referring here to the stories from around 1984, I think. There WAS an agonizing period (I'm guessing the late '70s; not positive) where the Hulk DID become completely savage, inarticulate, and ravenous. I thought it was one of the most boring stretches ever, though. So Doctor L, I can see where you're coming from -- there are all different types of Hulk personas to work with; the question is, which Hulk makes a more intriguing character? ---------------------- "It's MORE ... than a hobby!"
Doctor Lamont		#159	[-]
(05/07/08 6:08 PM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	The Hulk I am fond of, and which I feel has the most potential for a good multi-layered story for this character, was indeed more like the Karloff monster from BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN... That's the version most people know. If they did it any other way nobody would recognize the character. I like the child-like, misunderstood Hulk as well, and think it is the best version to do in the film. That concept has just been stretched too thin in the comics though. There is only so much you can do with a semi- articulate character on a monthly basis year after year. Some of the changes they've made in an attempt to freshen up the material have been horrible. That savage, inarticulate period was one of the worst.
Spoiler II		#160	[-]
(05/09/08 1:40 AM) More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite	I grew up on HULK comics and the TV show,which i enjoyed but thats because it was feast or famine for superhero material on TV with our few channels we had. HULK as a bodybuilder slathered in greasepaint was better than McCloud in any form to a 8 year old. Hulk was never one of my favorite Marvel characters (for brutish powerhouses,i prefered the grumpy and humorous THING much more) so media interpretations of him never got too far under my skin. The Hulk in Ang Lees film looked like a large child and that was very unappealling to me as i always thought the transformation should bring out a primitive devolutioned side of Banner,not his inner child. The Hulk in the new film definitely looks like the 70s Hulk i remember from those nice cover paintings of the old Marvel Hulk magazine, but i would rather see that great numbskulled caveman style Hulk that Jack Kirby gave us originally. The Abomination looks like a Resident Evil bit player and not that cool reptilian guy of my childhood. Is this how he looks in the comics now? I will give it a chance regardless. The trailer shows him ripping tanks and jeeps apart like paper and thats something the TV show NEVER EVER delivered on that i wanted to see. IRON MAN raised the bar for the poor Hulk and every other superhero this summer for that matter. " the speaking and sensitive Hulk who was trapped in a world he never asked to be in had more personality than Banner" TEEN HULK?

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Edward Norton is THE HULK