I didn’t cite it at the time, and I don’t think it was on a site I regularly read (mercifully), but while looking for something else online a day or two ago, I ran across this comment (paraphrased):
The new Hulk movie looks pretty stupid. I don’t remember the Hulk being able to jump over the Grand Canyon before. I never read the comic books, but I remember the TV show, and he couldn’t do that.
While I’ve heard a lot of folks criticizing the new Hulk movie for the quality of the CGI, I’ve not heard anyone use that as a reason before. Yeesh.
65 view(s)
I think it’s funny. “I’m completely ignorant about the source material but don’t like the way the movie contradicts the bad, low-budget, Seventies TV show of the same name.”
Rumor alert: A fellow at work heard that, in addition to the traditional “the madder Hulk gets, the stronger he gets,” this Hulk also gets bigger—up to 20 feet tall!
I hope not! While the Hulk’s stature did increase over the years (ridiculously, at times, depending on who was handling the pencilling chores), 20′ is way out of line. How can we take him seriously? (Um…okay. Maybe “seriously” isn’t the right word here. But still, we’re really gonna be straining the ol’ suspension of disbelief if that rumor’s true.)
Well, I’m not sure that getting bigger (which is certainly not beyond the pale as a metahuman trait in the Marvel Universe) is any sillier than getting stronger. It’s not in keeping with the “canon,” kindasorta, but I could see where it would work in a cinematic setting.
Heck, Hulk is bigger than Banner. Why shouldn’t Truly Torqued Hulk be bigger than Just Peeved Hulk?
Because a fight between a 20′ Hulk and, say, a 6′ Thing would look completely preposterous. If the Abomination is only navel-high to the Hulk, it’s gonna be kinda hard to work up any sense of peril. It’s one thing when that’s your power (Giant-Man/Goliath), and another when it’s just tossed in as an afterthought.
The changes made to Spider-Man (organic web-shooters, for example) were for a specific purpose (no need to establish that PP is a boy genius, or explain the mechanisms). If that’s the case with the Hulk, well and good. If we have to try to rationalize it, I ain’t a-gonna like it!
And now, off on a tangent:
What about the Absorbing Man’s recent appearance in Hulk’s mag? That new mind-control ability sure is a surprise! And it looks like he’ll be absorbing ol’ Green-Genes’ power next issue. Eep!
I would worry more about a 20-ft Hulk vs the Abomination or the Thing or anyone like that if we were talking about the Marvel Universe. I’ve not heard of any indication that’s where the movie is set.
As to AM … yeah, well, I’m getting more than a little tired of the Hulk’s focus on Dark Criminal Conspiracies and Underground Government Labs.
I’ve seen the trailers of the new Hulk movie. The CGI is pretty bad. He looks like an overgrown big green GUMBY. It does not look like flesh, but like clay or plastic or a really nasty mixture of both. But definitely the muscles and the over all body of the Hulk is not believable as flesh and bones. It’s like they are trying to insert the cartoon into a live-action film, instead of bringing a comic-book character to life. They screwed up BIG.
That seems to be the general consensus of the comments I’ve heard.
Of course, the finished product may not be what we see in the trailer. But, still, it’s worrisome.
The Sci-Fi channel ran a 1-hour documentary last night. The close-ups looked great. The big problem seemed to be in the movement. It was reminiscent of stop-motion photography.
A 15-feet tall Hulk is huge! It might make him too monstrous to be a sympathetic character. Of course, Hulk is only on-screen for 20-30 minutes, so it may not matter. Apparently, Lee’s focus is the angst-ridden lives of Banner, his scientist father David (!), scientist (?) Betty Ross, military scientist (?) Glenn Talbot, and General Ross.
Wow the Hulk is Bad. The Animation is lousy and the comic book scene changes are horrible. Not to mention that the Hulk doesnt really say much except grown a few times. Im a fan of the Hulk comics but the movie gets boring after a while. All in all, the Hulk is gonna be horrible.
The Hulk Movie Review:
its not worth to watch it on the big screen.
its not worth to wait on video.
its NOT even worth to download it. *save your bandwidth, felt sorry for the folks who had to record it at the theater.
IN SHORT… don’t watch it. You will be TRULY disappointed. Don’t even watch it, even if you are bored, you’ll just get upset watching a crappy movie.
Reasons:
In the comic books, Hulk would be around 8-10 feet tall.
–In the movie, Hulk is 15-20 feet tall.
Hulk can run and jump better than the average man, but only to an extent.
–In the movie, Hulk jumps over mountains and canyons and runs faster than a bullet train. *for a moment I thought I was watching King Kong VS Godzilla or something like that.
In the comic books, Hulk is NOT super bullet proof.
–In the movie, is he pratically bullet proof and is like impervious to pain.
Crappy movie. Needs to go back and have major rework and revision or just cancel it. Needs help big time. DO NOT WATCH IT…not worth the time, money, effort, or bandwidth to see the movie.
A friend saw it. Called me the next morning to make sure I don’t obliterate 2-1/3 hours of my life on that abomination (heh–sorry).
Hmmm.
For the record, though, in the comics, Hulk is “super bullet-proof” (hello, he’s super tank-shell-proof).
In the comics, Hulk regularly used to cover miles at a single leap, and up to thousands of feet in the air.
For the size thing, y’got me. Though it’s certainly within the variation of different Hulk artists.
Movie Guru.. it is obvious that you know nothing about the comic book Hulk or what qualifies as a good Comic Book to Film adaptation. I have always wondered what kind of movie a so-called movie critic would make. Write a script, Direct and produce a film let us see it and let us decide if you really know what makes a good movie.
While the “those who can, do; those who can’t, critique” idea has some merit to it (and certainly is comforting to those being criticized), I don’t know that it’s universally true. Do I have to know how to paint to know what makes a “good painting”?
It’s fair to ask what a critic would have done differently. It’s fair to ask, if a critic attacks particular film-making mechanics, the basis for their knowledge. And certainly I am willing to trust such criticism more from someone who’s been there. But only “more,” not “absolutely,” and even then, aesthetic judgments are subject only to disagreement, not absolutes.