i just saw the hulk tonight. i've been reading a lot of the comments posted here, mostly because i'm completely undecided on whether or not i liked (i don't think loved is an option) or hated the movie. a lot of good points have been brought up on the boards. my (oh so respected) opinions:
--the cgi was ok. gollum was a lot better. the trailers made it look worse than it was. it wasnt necessarily realistic in any sense, did look ok if you are expecting a comic book character feel. i wished they could have developed a very realistic hulk. i thought spiderman had about as much depth in the cgi instances. looks almost like a cartoon...too smooth. not what in was wanting, but not jarjar binks bad.
--i thought ang lee's odd scene set ups were actually nicely done, and one of the better parts of the movie.
--anyways, the main reason i posted was to do with the plot. i'm not going to comment on whether or not it was good; i'm still undecided. my criticism (and maybe in other reviews i'll find someone going into more detail about
this) is that it strayed so much from the comic origins. i'm approaching this as a complete hulkophile stance, so its nerdy observations only, and i'd like to read other hulk obsessed comic collectors. but would it have been so hard to at least somewhat followed the original story of how banner became the hulk. betty was never a scientist. banner never really enjoyed being the hulk (maybe debatable if looked at psychologically and delving into his subconcious desires, but he definitely never said he "liked becoming the hulk and losing control (that i know of)). the guy he saved was rick jones, not "hooper" or whatever this unimportant character's name in the movie is. banner was not working on a cure, but employed by the govt who was using his experiments for a bomb that exploded while he was saving jones from being a rebellious teenager. when banner was working on these experiments, he knew his name was banner, and didnt work under an alias. but beyond all this, the entire plot about his father makes no sense to me, and is my biggest hangup on the movie. i'm a little rusty on my facts (and this is where i'd like some comments from other experts on the details of the real hulk story (mostly because my collection is in storage in portland oregon and i cant access it to check myself). i thought banner's father (whose name was brian, not david (these are the little things that drive me nuts; why did they have to rename him?)) was dead, and yes that lead bruce to question his childhood life. but i'm sure his father never actually confronted him (am i wrong fellow nerds?). his father was an abusive (physically and mentally) man who never controlled his anger, so bruce grew up wanting to be the opposite of him. the whole flashback of his father killing his mother, the dna experiments he did, working w/ the govt, being jailed by thunderbolt ross...did any of that happen? i know a lot of the psychological origins of banner's inner rage center on his father's role in his life, but to base the whole movie on his father returning and becoming the absorbing man just isnt clicking with me.
my main point is, when you have a story as intriguing (and with many deep issue possibilities) as the hulk's, why change it so much? what was so wrong about the way the hulk was created as stan lee wrote it, and how the hulk was developed and explored and revealed further on down the line (especially by peter davud in the issues after #300)? those were well written stories. i understand hollywood and movies usually modify plots for the big screen, but this almost only seemed loosely based on the actual comic. it seemed the only real elements left from the actual story of the incerdible hulk are that there's a guy named banner who is doused in gamma and becomes big and green, and he is chased by the army and dates betty ross. other than that, i feel like they just rewrote the fill-ins and created an entirely different storyline. did any of the writers ever really read the comic?
--the cgi was ok. gollum was a lot better. the trailers made it look worse than it was. it wasnt necessarily realistic in any sense, did look ok if you are expecting a comic book character feel. i wished they could have developed a very realistic hulk. i thought spiderman had about as much depth in the cgi instances. looks almost like a cartoon...too smooth. not what in was wanting, but not jarjar binks bad.
--i thought ang lee's odd scene set ups were actually nicely done, and one of the better parts of the movie.
--anyways, the main reason i posted was to do with the plot. i'm not going to comment on whether or not it was good; i'm still undecided. my criticism (and maybe in other reviews i'll find someone going into more detail about
this) is that it strayed so much from the comic origins. i'm approaching this as a complete hulkophile stance, so its nerdy observations only, and i'd like to read other hulk obsessed comic collectors. but would it have been so hard to at least somewhat followed the original story of how banner became the hulk. betty was never a scientist. banner never really enjoyed being the hulk (maybe debatable if looked at psychologically and delving into his subconcious desires, but he definitely never said he "liked becoming the hulk and losing control (that i know of)). the guy he saved was rick jones, not "hooper" or whatever this unimportant character's name in the movie is. banner was not working on a cure, but employed by the govt who was using his experiments for a bomb that exploded while he was saving jones from being a rebellious teenager. when banner was working on these experiments, he knew his name was banner, and didnt work under an alias. but beyond all this, the entire plot about his father makes no sense to me, and is my biggest hangup on the movie. i'm a little rusty on my facts (and this is where i'd like some comments from other experts on the details of the real hulk story (mostly because my collection is in storage in portland oregon and i cant access it to check myself). i thought banner's father (whose name was brian, not david (these are the little things that drive me nuts; why did they have to rename him?)) was dead, and yes that lead bruce to question his childhood life. but i'm sure his father never actually confronted him (am i wrong fellow nerds?). his father was an abusive (physically and mentally) man who never controlled his anger, so bruce grew up wanting to be the opposite of him. the whole flashback of his father killing his mother, the dna experiments he did, working w/ the govt, being jailed by thunderbolt ross...did any of that happen? i know a lot of the psychological origins of banner's inner rage center on his father's role in his life, but to base the whole movie on his father returning and becoming the absorbing man just isnt clicking with me.
my main point is, when you have a story as intriguing (and with many deep issue possibilities) as the hulk's, why change it so much? what was so wrong about the way the hulk was created as stan lee wrote it, and how the hulk was developed and explored and revealed further on down the line (especially by peter davud in the issues after #300)? those were well written stories. i understand hollywood and movies usually modify plots for the big screen, but this almost only seemed loosely based on the actual comic. it seemed the only real elements left from the actual story of the incerdible hulk are that there's a guy named banner who is doused in gamma and becomes big and green, and he is chased by the army and dates betty ross. other than that, i feel like they just rewrote the fill-ins and created an entirely different storyline. did any of the writers ever really read the comic?
Tell Your Friends