The Incredible Hulk

One thing we need to bear in mind. This film portrays The Incredible Hulk as he was intended to be - that is, as per the Marvel Comics, so the creature's size in the new film reflects Stan Lee's original character.

The Incredible Hulk TV series had to make several concessions to the real world to be able to work. For one thing, the TV Hulk was cut down to seven feet tall but even so camera trickery was often used to make Lou Ferrigno taller than he actually was.

But that was nothing compared to the more far-reaching alterations Kenneth Johnson made to the whole concept just to be able to get the idea plausible for a mainstream TV series. Johnson was tasked with choosing one of the Marvel Comics titles to adapt, however he hated comic books and couldn't see how any of them could be work in a "mature" way, but eventually he realised he could perhaps do something with The Incredible Hulk.

First thing to be altered as Bruce Banner's name, which Johnson changed to David (after his son) so the character's first name and surname did not begin with the same letter (this to dissociate from the comic book origins). And the supporting characters of the comic ie. General Ross and Betty were all tossed aside in favour of the famous psychological feel to the series; indeed Bill Bixby was reluctant to become involved with a series called "The Incredible Hulk" but came on board when Johnson sold the human emotion side of the idea.

Finally, instead of a crazed military general the TV Hulk's main nemesis would be an incompetent, downmarket tabloid reporter (Jack McGee) who follows the Hulk around the country, believing the creature will boost his stagnating career. Kenneth Johnson wanted to go further with his reworking of the Hulk concept - Stan Lee refused permission for Universal to change the Hulk's colour from green to red, which Johnson considered to be a more natural colour for a creature driven by rage. I could go on, but I hope this illustrates, as briefly as is possible, how both the comic book Hulk and that of the TV series were two completely different animals.
 
Um, maybe because
Hulk looked like a bogey on acid.
The toughest, baddest superhero in history gets to fight ...er... a gang of poodles and his pops.
It was about an hour too long.
It took an hour before he turned into the hulk.
Um that just about covers it I think.
 
Question for those that have seen it....

What happens to the Abomination? The Hulk stops strangling it when the fight is over and then kicks it's body towarRAB the General, but we can see it still breathing. Then Hulk jumps off to hide and that's it... so is Abomination dead or what? Seems like a bit of an anti-climax if he spent that whole time fighting him for it to turn out to be a draw!

Paddy :D
 
I don't think it was a draw - he was down on the floor and comprehensively beaten.

Presumably he was taken away for experiments and to (possibly) reappear in the sequel with The Leader?
 
"We’re putting a team together."

Avengers (comics)



Bill Bixby was the first guy you saw when Banner was flicking through the TV channels.

Hope that helped.

All in all this film was great. 9/10 from me.

I went in with high expectations and the film did little to disappoint.

The Incredible Hulk is everything Ang Lee's 2003 atrocity Hulk wasn't and more.

It not only stays true to the Hulk's origins, but it also greatly respects the television series. I enjoyed it so much that as soon as the brilliant final sequence played out leading into the end credits, I was muttering under my breath "Now that is a Hulk film... Ang Lee!". The effects were also considerably better this time around whilst still needing perfecting in areas. Frankly, the film has such a good pace along with its story and script that I wasn't bothered by these inconsistencies when it was all said and done.

I haven 't been this satisfied with a comic-book film for a long time. Iron Man was definitely a U-Turn back in the right direction (Highly Recommended) but it still lacked that special something to warrant anything higher than a 7 for me. Spider-Man in general wasn't bad and the second film was a drastic improvement, the third being the drastic opposite (Never had I abhorred a comic book film more than Hulk until I saw Spider-Man 3). Films like Superman Returns were mediocre and Batman Begins was quite good but needed to be a lot better. In this regard, I never expected either to blow me away to be honest because I'm such a big fan of Superman: The Movie (easily the greatest comic book adaptation of all-time) and Batman 89'. Begins was much better than the miserably bad Batman & Robin but Superman Returns was just a bland remake of the original film. Give me Superman II and III any given day over Returns. I'd say Singer's film, whilst being bad for different reasons, was on the same wavelength as Superman IV: The Quest for Peace.

Roll on The Avengers film and possibly even a Hulk sequel too!! :D
 
But he's extremely big and strong, what did they do, put him in cuRAB and lead him to a jail cell? He could easily have fought them off and started another rampage. Seems like a silly way to end the film, but the rest of it was quite good.

Paddy :D
 
As others have said, it's building towarRAB an Avengers movie.

In short (for those who don't want to click on the links to read the Wiki stuff) the Hulk and Iron Man were original members of a super hero team called The Avengers.

Amongst others Thor and Captain America were part of this team. Both those films and an Avengers movie are due for production.

The Avengers started back in the 60's, but more recently it's been re-imagined by Marvel as 'The Ultimates' - which has different versions of the same heroes and is headed up by Nick Fury.

A couple of scenes in The Incredible Hulk were very reminiscient of scenes from The Ultimates (Tim Roth taking on Hulk whilst jacked up on serum was similar to a fight between Hulk and Captain America - and Banner plummeting from the helicopter).

Also, in The Ultimates Nick Fury is portrayed by Samuel L Jackson (his likeness is used and his speech patterns are typical Samuel L). In a post credit scene during Iron Man - Nick Fury, played by the real Samuel L, visits Tony Stark talking.
 
Just watched it tonight, was alright - I liked (ish) the other one anyway, this one was an improvement, but kind of went over the same ground at times.

I'm not sure if I like the direction the end seems to suggest how things will be in the future.... we shall have to see.
 
Read Peter BraRABhaw's hilarious review in The Guardian: "The Sorry Green Giant".

"Hulk smash. Hulk go rarrrr. Hulk look like Shrek. Hulk in boring movie . . . " etc. PMSL.:D
 
Just got back from seeing this and it's very good! Most of my mates who are into the whole marvel universe thing said that it was just as good as Iron Man. Was nice to see big Lou in there as well as Bill Bixby (Bruce watching him on TV in one of his earlier roles).
 
Well I have to admit Marvel Studios has done it again! Brilliant film very fast paced, and this time Hulk didn't look cute cuddly and cumbersome, he looked bloody menacing! It is quite a fast paced film, I thoroughly enjoyed it! I was particularly please hulk got to use his catchphrase in this film. All in all comparable to Iron Man I feel, the CGI is impressive and the acting if excellent.

4/5 from me I think!
 
As a all out action film-Hulk 2008 wins.
As a 'eye spy' of Marvel cameos/in jokes- this one wins again.
As a potential for a franchise/ merchandise/ spin oRAB- this one is clearly the winner.
However, in terms of filmaking and as a complete movie, the 2003 Ang Lee version is far superior, in my (albeit unpopular) opinion.

I think my main criticism was that, apart from a great performance by Tim Roth, i really missed the actors from the first film. Ed Norton did a solid job but i have always found him very overrated and this did nothing to change that opinion. Liv Tyler was so bland and underwritten that her character should just have been renamed 'generic love interest', and, worse of all, William Hurt was nowhere near as impressive as Sam Elliot as the general and acted more like a pantomime villain.

Also, i dont get that in most of the good reviews I have read, all they seem to rave about is the Tony Stark cameo, which is about 30 seconRAB long and at the very end of the film?!

It had its moments though.
 
Well the Hulk is meant to be this massive creature, not the slightly more toned character that was played in the TV series. To keep it loyal to the comic book, the only way to get a convincing character that big is by CGI. Make up and prostetics can only go so far... where as CGI is limitless!

I think personally you just don't like CGI full stop, yes some movies over use it, but its not because CGI isn't good, its because they rely purely on the CGI to carry the movie, and because we've all been exposed to soo much CGI, it takes a lot to wow us nowadays!

That said though, if you just did a little bit of research into CGI, you will be shocked at how much it is used without you realising! Lots of city scenes can't be done without the use of CGI because it would cost too much and take to long to build the sets, or would disrupt actual city life if they were going to film it outside. The amount of times, CGI people are put into movies without you realising, just to make the scene look a little more crowded is astonishing!

I think you may just need to embrace CGI a little more, maybe also research into the makings of films, I think people have a wierd twisted view on how films used to be made, thinking the old fashioned way is better, but then i guess people will always think the old days were the glory days!
 
140 minutes :eek: No thank you.

What is with Ed Norton anyway? He's a fine actor but why does he seem to want to take control of his projects when he is the actor not the director. Why doesn't he direct if he's so bothered :rolleyes:

I'm looking forward to it.
 
Back
Top