« Refugees and Militias | Main | DJ Zidane » New Hulk15 Apr 2008 01:33 pm Just five years after the Ang Lee Hulk, Hollywood is giving us a new version. Not a sequel, it seems, just another Hulk movie. Considering that the first movie sucked, it's not a bad plan: I like the cast a lot, but I'm missing my "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." Comments (48)
I disagree with the idea that the first version sucked. While it certainly seems like a movie that SHOULD suck, it definitely did not. And I don't mean it was good in a campy way, either. Go back and watch it again. And try to forget what you think your friends at the AV Club would probably think. 
I agree whole heartedly that the first one was awful. Hopefully this one will be better.
The movie that needs to be made? Gilligan's Island: The Movie. The plot, such as it is, will answer the question: If it was only supposed to be a three hour tour, why did the Howells bring all their money?
This looks like an improvement from the first. Still, I can't imagine there ever being a successful screen adaptation of The Hulk, because there is no real way of getting around the "expanding pants" conundrum.
We need a remake of Attack Of The Mushroom People (aka Fungus Of Terror). This is based on the theory that, with enough money, flowers can be made to grow in the barest ground: With the same level of production values as Lord Of The Rings, or a season of Grey's Anatomy, 'Mushroom People' could be at least as entertaining as "Hulk 2". Ya gotta believe.
I saw Ang Lee's before it was reviewed, and I enjoyed it. The split screen ruled.
This does not look any better then the first one, which I thought was just ok. Iron Man on the other hand, looks pretty good.
You wouldn't like me when I'm Ang Lee? Sorry.
After seeing the most recent Superman and Batman movies, I decided that if a ever see another comic book superhero movie again for the rest of my life it will be too soon. Posted by Virginia | April 15, 2008 1:52 PM Sure, the recent Superman wasn't great. But I thought it was passable. And the most recent Batman movie was the best Batman movie they've made yet, and one of the best superhero movies ever I'd say.
Oh hey, it's the Matrix Reloaded preview. Just in green instead of black.
We need a remake of Attack Of The Mushroom People (aka Fungus Of Terror). This is the 2nd day in a row I have come across this movie. Yesterday I was perusing "Creature Double Feature" fans site. Anyhoo releasing re-engineered movies this quickly almost seems like a MI/FL recount until you think of a redone version of Phantom Menace, attack of the clones .... Of course George Lucas might need a few waterboardings to get him on board. Think of your own movies with lots of promise but no follow through that need a mulligan. Howsabout Matrix:ReBoot REBOOTED ?
I wouldn't mind if we did the last five years over in general . . . or the last eight. They have sucked. The Ang Lee _Hulk_ was okay -- it looked like one of Marvel's current glossy-page productions. I'd prefer it to look more pulpy. This one looks about the same, too glossy. I don't know why it's so hard for them to do a successful job of an Alan Moore-based movie. If they could, I'd like to see _Miracleman_. There is some structural or ideological barrier that prevents an intelligent superhero movie. _Iron Man_ looks fun, though.
And the most recent Batman movie was the best Batman movie they've made yet, and one of the best superhero movies ever I'd say. Posted by lfv | April 15, 2008 2:21 PM Just watched that one last night. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that Batman Begins most closely follows the DC Comics character than any of the prior ones. It remains to be seen if The Dark Night will continue in that character-development vein. Plus, Heath Ledger's death casts a pall on the whole thing. Making these things into movies is a tricky business, especially when the director is trying to adhere to the source material while the much of the audience has developed a sense of what it all "should" be like. I don't know how Batman Begins did at the box office, but it wouldn't surprise me if it didn't do that well. It's pretty dark, and Batman does get things done without breaking a few hundred dozen eggs.
From the early reviews of the Iron Man movie (through spies at previews), it sounds like they compacted all the action in the entire movie into the trailer. Although there is a bald Jeff Bridges.
I liked it, but I wouldn't for a moment argue with any Hulk fans out there who thought it was a pile of crap. The Hulk was in it, but 80% percent of the film was about something else. Like one of those graphic-novels that have the Hulk as a background figure and concentrates instead on the people he comes into contact with. Worthy, but Ang Lee might as well have just done a remake of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde. This one, on the other hand, looks like it's taken many of its influences from the wider Hulk mythos, and especially the rebooted Ultimate Hulk version. Tossing Banner out of a helicopter in order to trigger the transformation alone is going to send an awful lot of fanboys just ga-ga in a good way. And I'm one of them. That's just SO how it looked in The Ultimates when the Chitauri were, uh.... ahem. It looks good.
The first one didn't suck. It took a lot of risks, and not everything worked. But the climactic scene between Eric Bana and Nick Nolte was incredibly good - that speech Nolte gives on the platform is awesome. Whoever gave that movie the greenlight - Ang Lee's version of the Hulk, focusing on repressed desire and the struggle between fathers and sons - is my personal hero.
Regarding the Ang Lee version of the Hulk, I think Lee's biggest problem was that he was aiming for 'artistic' when fans were expecting 'professional'. Singer didn't aim for 'artistic' with the X-Men movies he made but did aim for 'artistic' with the Superman movie, and look at the results (at the same time, look at how Ratner - a more hack director - dumbed down the third X-Men movie). Comic book fans are not interested too much in being wowed by how crafty the director can make the camera move, but more by how the story and the characters draw them into the comic-book mythos... Lee's movie was well-made, with good actors (Bana made for a better Banner than Norton will, and Jennifer Connelly... sigh), but the story was uninvolving and in the end confusing and that is what hurt it.
The split screen might have worked if there was something in the movie that was actually worth watching. All it really added though was multiple angles on the suck.
I don't know why it's so hard for them to do a successful job of an Alan Moore-based movie. If they could, I'd like to see _Miracleman_. There is some structural or ideological barrier that prevents an intelligent superhero movie. _Iron Man_ looks fun, though. Cause da man is CRAZY dats why :-) I would love to see but can't imagine them getting MiracleMan or more importantly it's finale on the screen. I didn't mind V for Vendetta at all actually I thought it was pretty good specially for the Wachowski brothers er sister er ... ;-) One can only hope that the on-off-on-off ....again movie version of Watchmen will finally make it to the light of day.
I don't know what to say to someone who thought Batman Begins sucked. I mean, really? That was the best non-comic book adaptation I've ever seen. Dark Knight looks to carry on with that, though it's tragic about the Ledger death. From what I've seen, his Joker blows away every other Joker, ever. The others played him like a clow, even Nicholson. He was never a clown, he was just a raging fucking psychopath.
I agree with those who liked the Ang Lee version but could see why a lot of fans would have been disappointed. Having said that, this new version looks worse to me, but maybe it's what Hulk fans have been waiting for. I never read much Hulk, except when he was involved in other Marvel books. As for Batman Begins, I think it definitely displayed a better understanding of the character than any of the previous live action movies (even if I was a little annoyed by the !!!XTREME!!! Batmobile) and The Dark Knight looks to be even better. Plus, you can't beat the title.
This movie is going to be epically bad. Really, really bad. So will Ironman. I don't get why everyone loves the Ironman trailer; to me it is the exact same as every other superhero movie trailer ever. Same with this one.
The Ang Lee Hulk movie was great. The ending was a weak, but honestly, there was a period in the middle when the hulk is busting out of the military compound and hopping about the desert that was sheer perfection. It captured what 60-70s Hulk was ALL about. The problem is that damn TV series. So many folks were exposed to the Hulk through that middling pile of garbage. They're convinced that a Hulk movie is supposed to be dumb, campy, over-the-top and stupid. So when something comes along which is not a mirror of that dumb-as-rocks TV serial the audience gets confused. It's like folks who watch a Batman movie and get upset that there are no bad puns, "bat shark-repellent," or "Pow!" and "Biff!" cartoon effects. The Ang Lee version of the Hulk captured what the Hulk was about in a way that's rare in superhero movies. Batman Begins pulled it off, Spiderman 2 was almost there, and X-Men 2 also came close. Honestly, the Hulk as a character is not a starring role. He's a background character, a force of nature, a situation to be dealt with. He should not, and cannot, hold down much of a starring role. (Think of all the Hulk iterations: Mr. Fixit, the Professor, etc.. to keep the story going they had to make the Hulk smart.) Why? Because classic Hulk (savage Hulk) is a big, dumb, angry child who gets strong and breaks things. The story has to be about Banner and the people around him dealing with this force of nature. Are disaster movies about the Hurricane/tornado/volcano (or perhaps iceberg, in the case of Titanic)? Or are they about the people reacting to the disaster? There are three rules to the Hulk PS - Also, the AV Club thinks you should reconsider your view of the Hulk PPS - They also think that one of the Hulk video games kicks ass! It does.
>"you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." Actually, all the posters are being rewritten.
If they could, I'd like to see _Miracleman_ If they can't even sort out the rights to Miracleman well enough to get the damn thing out in trade paperback after all these years, how are they ever going to deal with the much more lucrative movie rights? Anyway, Alan Moore comics can never be made into successful superhero movies because they're simply too good. A good superhero movie draws on a somewhat crappy iconic character, which lets the screenwriters and directors breathe a bit. Alan Moore's best comics just don't allow for anyone else's vision to intrude.
Ang Lee made the same mistake Tim Burton made on the Batmans (and almost made on Superman), thinking that the source material is so inherently weak that it needs someone else's "vision" to be grafted on top of it to give it any emotional heft (Singer fell into this trap a bit on Superman Returns, as well). the Hulk should be a fun, rip-roaring action movie with a dollop of sharp characterization and the occasional connection to reality, like Die Hard or Raiders of the Lost Ark. plus, no Gamma Poodles.
"Honestly, the Hulk as a character is not a starring role. He's a background character, a force of nature, a situation to be dealt with. He should not, and cannot, hold down much of a starring role. (Think of all the Hulk iterations: Mr. Fixit, the Professor, etc.. to keep the story going they had to make the Hulk smart.) Why? Because classic Hulk (savage Hulk) is a big, dumb, angry child who gets strong and breaks things."
Is anyone going to go to the new Indiana Jones movie hoping it'll spend 20 minutes meditating on the emotional distance between Indy and his dad? Mike
Guy: What is there not to like about the Iron Man trailer? It shows a dude with Golden/Cherry-Red armor shooting missiles and blowing shit up. WTF do you not understand about that? Is it possible you just don't like super-hero movies? Because it sounds like thats your main complaint: You don't like super-hero movies and there are too damn many of them. MBunge: Exactly. I just want to see Hulk and Abomination fight. I could care less about how tortured Bruce Banner is. I didn't mind the first movie, I just looked at the storyline crap as filler between the fight with giant mutant dogs, the escape scene, the fight with tanks, the fight with soldiers in the city, and the fight at the end with what I'm assuming is supposed to be Absorbing Man (though he isn't anywhere near the same character as in the comics, he has all of the same powers). I'll try to ignore Edward Norton's angst in a similar fashion.
"I don't know what to say to someone who thought Batman Begins sucked. I mean, really? That was the best non-comic book adaptation I've ever seen. Dark Knight looks to carry on with that, though it's tragic about the Ledger death. From what I've seen, his Joker blows away every other Joker, ever. The others played him like a clow, even Nicholson. He was never a clown, he was just a raging fucking psychopath." Not really, at least not until the mid 80's. Actually believe it or not, but the most faithful adaptation of a comic book to screen was the 1960's batman TV show. Have you ever read Batman comics from the 1950's-1960's. It was spot on. Also, the best Batman movie was Batman Returns. Danny Devito doesn't get enough credit for actually making the Penguin a menacing villain.
The Batman series from the 60s was a faithful adaptation, but the problem is that comics back then simply weren't very good. The original conception of the Joker as a clown, up to and including Jack Nicholson's portrayal, never really worked for me. A lot of this is like asking why modern comedies don't faithfully imitate vaudeville acts... vaudeville wasn't very funny, either, because the writing wasn't as good. You know what was a great adaptation of Batman? The cartoon from the 1990s.
There's no reasoning with comic book fan-boys, but the Hulk was really quite a good movie.
...the fight at the end with what I'm assuming is supposed to be Absorbing Man... Clearly I'm not enough of a comics fan. Does Absorbing Man transfix his enemies with his dazzling personality and chaming conversational skills? Please advise.
Not really, at least not until the mid 80's. Actually believe it or not, but the most faithful adaptation of a comic book to screen was the 1960's batman TV show. Have you ever read Batman comics from the 1950's-1960's. It was spot on. Not exactly. Actually it depends upon what you consider the "original" character. The earliest incarnation of Batman and his villains (in the 40s) was actually darker than I think even most modern fans of the book would recognize. For one thing, he frequently killed villains... using a gun! But you are right that by the 50s, it had become a much more goofy title, in the way that all comics during that time really. HUAC apparently had a lot to do with that.
Anybody who thinks the 1960's Batman was "spot on" has a serious glaucoma problem. Batman was originally a dark character, possibly influenced by various French and other "noire" sorts of characters. In the 1950's and '60's, you had the stupid "Comics Code" which dumbed down the whole industry in the name of "family values". This is why you ended with the incredible crap that was "Batman" in the '60's. The "Green Hornet" series was much, much better in terms of how it was played (except for the insane crossover when Robin actually fought Bruce Lee). I remember seeing the first Batman show aired as a kid - I practically wanted to slit my wrists. I had the same reaction when they released that incredibly stupid "Doc Savage" movie with Ron Ely. People who do shit like that should be waterboarded. The first company to smash that crap was Marvel, with their "crazy superhero" sub-genre starting with Wolverine, and then "The Punisher" (which in turn came from Don Pendleton's ground-breaking "Executioner" series of pulp fiction novels.) Then Frank Miller brought that concept to Batman. That changed the industry forever. I didn't see the first Hulk, so I'll probably try to see this one. The only complaint I have is that in the comics, the Hulk is a big guy - but he ain't twenty feet tall. Maybe eight or ten. Why make him a Goliath- size character? It's not necessary. The Hulk TV series was really quite good. It had good writers. Actors got Emmy's for their performances (Mariette Hartley, for one). Bill Bixby was an excellent actor. They had episodes dealing with sophisticated concepts of using the martial arts and meditation to control the Hulk. If they could produce a movie as good as the best episodes of the TV series, I'd probably like it.
Absorbing Man absorbs the properties of the things he touches. When he absorbed the electricity, the guy in the movie reminded me of Zzzax, too.
Guy: What is there not to like about the Iron Man trailer? It shows a dude with Golden/Cherry-Red armor shooting missiles and blowing shit up. WTF do you not understand about that? Is it possible you just don't like super-hero movies? Because it sounds like thats your main complaint: You don't like super-hero movies and there are too damn many of them. soullite: Okay, let me put it this way. It is not that I think the Trailer is bad, I guess it's entertaining. I just don't think the movie will be. A movie can have a good trailer and still be bad. I like some of them - I like Batman Begins, the original Spiderman (and the second but not as much), the first and second X-Men, maybe some others I am forgetting. But I think that recently for every good Superhero movie there's been a million bad ones. Examples: Daredevil, Superman Returns, the first Hulk movie, my super ex-girlfriend, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four 2, etc. So, to answer your question, I do think that there are too damn many of them, but there are ones that I like.
guy: you can't discuss superhero movies that sucked without mentioning Elektra which was, believe it or not, worse than Daredevil. Also, the second Spiderman movie was better than the first, which was quite good in and of itself. This is an indisputable fact.
That was a good trailer. The new one seems to have more action and less rumination, which could be OK. Part of what I loved about the first one is that it wasn't all about the action. It was a much different viewing experience compared to most of the comic adaptations that came before it, to its credit. But Matt's right about the cast, it looks pretty solid. And when exactly does Tim Roth *not* play a villain?
If you check out the character list at imdb, you'll find that the non-Hulk monster is almost certainly not the Absorbing Man. I'm just being vague in case anybody has come this far and yet wants no more spoilers, which I admit seems pretty unlikely. Now, my objection is: even if you don't like anything about the 2003 version, do we really need another take on the same origin story? Can't they just recast it all and move on with the character taken for granted instead of wasting half the movie getting to where we all know we're going?
This was a fun show, cheesy animation and all. The song ending misses one "Hulk!" though. It ended "who is as lovable, as ever-lovin' Hulk! . . . Hulk! . . Hulk!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj26N10Ymlg
why does everyone dislike HULK and Superman Returns? I don't get it.
The first one didn't suck. It took a lot of risks, and not everything worked. But the climactic scene between Eric Bana and Nick Nolte was incredibly good - that speech Nolte gives on the platform is awesome. If anything, I would have said the reverse. The beginning of the movie was good, I thought; Bruce Banner dealing with an emotionally distant father and his own inner monster. The middle of the movie was good, I thought; the military-industrial complex and greedy contractors underestimating the hulk, leading him to tear up tanks and chew up and spit out missiles. At the end, though, Nick Nolte's character changes from a more-or-less believably cold, manipulative asshole to a ranting megalomaniac, and his absorbing powers turn out to be pretty much whatever the CGI crew felt like doing. Whoopee.
The first Hulk had serious flaws, but Eric Bana was fine and Jennifer Connelly beats all, especially Liv Tyler. The thing I don't like about this one is that it's apparently all resolved with a Hollywood cliche. In the end getting really ticked off and somehow "controling it" is the key to victory. It's almost as tried and true a Hollywood cliche as the idea that every attempt to control nature or perfect the human condition through technology is bound to go haywire, almost automatically. Edward Norton is great, but I'm not sold that this is going to be great.
i like the trailer an it's ten times better than the whole first incredible hulk and i'm looking forward to seeing it.
i like the trailer an it's ten times better than the whole first incredible hulk and i'm looking forward to seeing it.
i like the trailer an it's ten times better than the whole first incredible hulk and i'm looking forward to seeing it.
Comments closed April 29, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
After seeing the most recent Superman and Batman movies, I decided that if a ever see another comic book superhero movie again for the rest of my life it will be too soon.
Posted by Virginia | April 15, 2008 1:52 PM