Anyone else a fan of both Hulk movies?

[El Payaso]

The 1977 movie is still the best one, though I did enjoy the other 2 to a certain degree. Ang's is spectacularly well made.

Basically, yeah. The 1977 pilot is still miles above the other two. I think the lack of money and studios and fans restrictions allowed the makers to go to the very core of the story. Never saw a Hulk portrayal that had the very spirit of Frankenstein.

Now both Hulk and TIH have severe studios interference. But whereas TIH was supposed to be a studio movie, Ang Lee's needed more freedom. Problem with Lee's movie for me is that it's stuck midways between the average superhero movie the studios demanded it to be and an Ang Lee movie, which is quite different. Problem with TIH for me is that it's just another superhero movie with a load of crappy humour and the average CGI fest.

Hulk-wise, Lee's Hulk was fantastic in action movies. The desert scene with the tanks said everything about him. How desperately he wants to be left alone, how much humans chase him, how much he adores freeedom. The way he destroyed the tanks was simply anthological. But Hulk himself had a weird green color; too plastic-like. Never cared about him being that big.

TIH had a better design and the fights were good enough. But many times I felt Hulk posing for the camera, growling with his arms bent backwards and such.

I was VERY dissapointed I didn't see ANY scary tranbsformation in ANY of the recent movies. Again, with a camera and cheap effects they did a much more effective transformation back in 1977: And another thing I never got to see was Hulk turning into Banner. Sure, TIH and the lab scene. But seriously, that showed me his feet mainly and still looked like a balloon deflating.

And both CGI Hulks had their moments when they looked like cartoons.

 

[The Morningstar]

I like them both. But for me, Ang's is superior. Better action and a more psychological look at the character. Which is essential really, otherwise you're left with a big green plot device that smashes stuff.

 

[superhero]

i disgre i thotuh angshulk was boring it hardly hadany action in it you can tell the hulk was fake. ididn't like the ending of it you couldn't tell who was fighting who the new hulk with ed norton was real looking you didn't need to readthe comic i rather watch billy bixiy hulk tv moives over ang's hulk any other day.

 

[VoodooMagic]

I like them both. But for me, Ang's is superior. Better action and a more psychological look at the character. Which is essential really, otherwise you're left with a big green plot device that smashes stuff.

Better action is incorrect....

Hulk Dogs is really poor and action doesn't even start till an hour and a half into the movie.

I think the characters are all really well done, however which is something I don't think is consistently true in TIH.

 

[Gamma Ra]

At the time, when I was younger, I was just happy to see so many Marvel characters being brought to life; so yes I enjoyed HULK quite a bit.

However, as I got older I began to find it difficult to sit through HULK. Very very boring and not much happens for almost an hour.

After I saw The Incredible Hulk, I was completely satisfied. It reminded me of the TV series (which was the point), made me care about Banner and gave the Hulk a formidable enemy.

IMO, TIH has the best climatic battle sequence of all the Marvel Studios movies.

But I still loved Hulk vs. the Tanks in Ang Lee's HULK

Which to me is the worst point for Marvel to have started from. I still love the television series, but it's based of of a richer comic book character. The comic is the point I think they should have referenced the and let the classic show be.

 

[Gamma Ra]

The 1977 movie is still the best one, though I did enjoy the other 2 to a certain degree. Ang's is spectacularly well made.

I started watching the show and reading the comic book about the same time. Though I still do not like the fact of knowing what Hulk is today, that the character of the Hulk in the original television show is only a pale imitation of the glorious comic book version...I totally agree here, I think the 1977 movie was at least a complete story with good action considering the time and budget; also excellent acting by all...including Ferrigno as the voiceless Hulk.

 

[Lord]

I think people get the idea that hulk dogs were supposed to be that important, but i liked the way they were used, they were sent by David Banner to text the waters and see if his son could transform, and to text him.

 

[Gamma Ra]

I forgot to mention, I hated that David Banner was used as Bruce's father's name in Ang's Hulk movie.

As far as the dogs like DarthDavidBanner mentioned, the idea came out of Paul Jenkins' run on the Hulk in his "Dogs of War" arc and I loved the raw fight with them in the movie..

 

[The Morningstar]

i disgre i thotuh angshulk was boring it hardly hadany action in it you can tell the hulk was fake. ididn't like the ending of it you couldn't tell who was fighting who the new hulk with ed norton was real looking you didn't need to readthe comic i rather watch billy bixiy hulk tv moives over ang's hulk any other day.

No way Pedro. The dog fight whilst a bit silly, was brutal and well shot.

And seriously, the desert scene that lasts nearly 30 minutes is just ridiculous. Easily one of the best action scenes in a superhero movie ever. Nothing in TIH even comes close to approaching it.

 

[LOBO3315a]

I don't know, that fight sequence between Abomination and Hulk was pretty well done.

 

[The Morningstar]

I preferred it when A-Bomb was just tear assing around. When they started fighting it was like a video game. And TIH doesn't move like Hulk. Hulk doing pakour? lol gtfo. The part where he was using those cars as weapons was cool though.

But the desert scene is just pure Hulk. That scene is just what Hulk is all about.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Cars as weapons? Yeah it was done...in one of the best games EVER:

HULK: Ultimate Destruction

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I like them both. But for me, Ang's is superior. Better action and a more psychological look at the character. Which is essential really, otherwise you're left with a big green plot device that smashes stuff.

Totally agreed, they didnt delve into the character for me in TIH, I like TIH as an action movie, but when I want to see something deeper and, for me, closer to the comics, its Ang's movie every time, that movie has multiple layers going, TIH is just an action/chase movie.

I forgot to mention, I hated that David Banner was used as Bruce's father's name in Ang's Hulk movie.

As far as the dogs like DarthDavidBanner mentioned, the idea came out of Paul Jenkins' run on the Hulk in his "Dogs of War" arc and I loved the raw fight with them in the movie..

Agreed, it was brutal and what I did love about the fight was Hulk was just as animalistic as the dogs, biting, tearing things apart, etc, it was great.

No way Pedro. The dog fight whilst a bit silly, was brutal and well shot.

And seriously, the desert scene that lasts nearly 30 minutes is just ridiculous. Easily one of the best action scenes in a superhero movie ever. Nothing in TIH even comes close to approaching it.

Totally agreed, the closest TIH got was the final fight, but half of that was them hanging onto the helicopter and there wasnt enough brawling for my tastes, Hulk ripping apart tanks, helicopters, and eventually, taking on jets as well is just an amazing continuous action sequence that has rarely been bettered in comic book movies.

 

[co2]

The 1977 movie is still the best one, though I did enjoy the other 2 to a certain degree. Ang's is spectacularly well made.

Don't know how I missed this thread, but I'm happy to see other people feel the way I do.

If I were asked to choose between Hulk, TIH and the '77 TV pilot...it wouldn't be an easy choice.

Hulk and TIH are polar opposites, the strengths of one are the flaws of the other. The only thing I can say bad about the TV pilot is it was on a TV budget. It has the most compelling story telling of the 3....and will always have the best Banner.

Can't wait to see what Ruffalo adds.

 

[Omega Red]

Love both movies. Although I saw so many holes in Ang Lee's Hulk. That pretty much killed a great movie. I mean I would of accepted the Puffball Society before Absorbing Dad. The Hulk dogs were in the comic so thats a non issue. But as much as I liked The Hulk I like TIH more

 

[TX85]

Don't know how I missed this thread, but I'm happy to see other people feel the way I do.

If I were asked to choose between Hulk, TIH and the '77 TV pilot...it wouldn't be an easy choice.

Hulk and TIH are polar opposites, the strengths of one are the flaws of the other. The only thing I can say bad about the TV pilot is it was on a TV budget. It has the most compelling story telling of the 3....and will always have the best Banner.

Can't wait to see what Ruffalo adds.

Agreed on everything 100%!

 

[Scooter]

No. I loved Ang Lee's Hulk, which was great. The newer one sucked wangus. Except for William Hurt, who I always love. But even he wasn't as awesome as Sam Elliot (who is also the ****).

 

[psylockolussus]

The 2003 Hulk movie didn't know how to use split screens and the tone of movie was just blah.

 

[SWAT]

I liked both. But, I gotta say I liked Hulk a bit more. Bana's Banner was perfect IMO.

 

[EML420]

Like said Hulks got that Batman thing with us being able to choose between two films but I have only scene Hulk a few times. While I have seen TIH a bunch and I watched Hulk last night on tnt (Dark knight then Hulk then Spiderman cool order of movies imo) and watching it again and having much more knowledge about Hulk from comics I like it much more.
I can respect what Ang Lee was trying to do he could have gone and made it a action movie but he didnt he went into Banners darker history. But out of the 2 movies I like The Incredible Hulk I loved the way the Hulk looked in it.
(Just a little side note but isnt Eric Bana like to much of a handsome dude to be Banner he isnt suppose to be hideous but still lol.)

 

[Vaportrail]

I love Hulk because it dares to be original. People say "it's not true" or whatever issue they have with it, but I felt like I got a complete story walking out of this movie, unlike many set-up-the-franchise films.

Incredible Hulk, it's just the opposite. The main characters don't have any growth in this entire film. You get the villains, but so what?
At the beginning of the movie, Bruce is on the run and Betty has no idea where he is, the general is hunting for him.
At the end of the movie, Bruce is on the run, Betty has no idea where he's gone and the general has to keep searching.

So... what was the point? And don't tell me "he's in control of it now" or something, because even the director has said the ending could go either way.
That being said, the Hulk/Abom fight was GREAT. I like the design of this Hulk more than Lee's version and the style of the film is very worthy of Hulk, but they just didn't know why they were telling the story.

 

[VoodooMagic]

Here's kind of my overall opinion of Ang Lee's Hulk.

It to me feels a lot like X1. In terms of whether it is a well-made film: yeah it has good writing, good acting interesting direction and all that. But I don't think it is a good HULK movie. Much in the same way I can never fully wrap my head around X-men 1 because to me those aren't the X-men. Wolverine is closeish, Professor X is great, but that's about it... And I feel similarly about Hulk. If it were a modern day Jekyll and Hyde movie I would think it was great, but as a Hulk movie it is not as good imo.

TIH was far too safe for my liking, especially after they had just made Iron Man and that was about as unique a superhero experience as possible. I understand they wanted to play TIH by the books so to make sure Marvel Studios got off to a good start

I think it laid solid foundation for the character but I hope they really take it to the next level for a sequel and start treating the Hulk like he's part of this MCU

 

[Chris Wallace]

Both movies are on my shelf and I still get a lot of enjoyment out of them.

 

[Stripesy Strip]

well tih had to be a better hulk movie, ang lee's version was pretty much nothing to do with the hulk but just starrred the hulk in it.

it was like burton's batman films, especially batman returns.

batman returns and hulk funnily enough are one of my favourite set of superhero movies or should i say films which portray superheroes in them

but none of them at all conventionally accurate. heck, i'm not sure donner's superman film was conventionally accurate either.

even though tih is more conventionally accurate, it still misses some of the major balls considering the amount of talk that was said about being 'faithful' and shunning the mistakes that came with it.

Usualy films that are their own thing make for better films rather than true faithfull adaptations. I want to see filmakers use their talent and their signature style. That's why I wasn't into Sam Raimi's spider-Man movies because there wasn't enough of the old Raimi in them, it was too commercial. When Donner made his Superman films, the Superman comics at the time were incredibly childish and silly so he basically only took some of the themes, made a great movie and nobody say these days "oh the guy took liberties, where is the giant key that open the fortress?"no people suddenly took it as cannon and that was "the" Superman from now on.

That being said I prefer the Thunderbolt Ross from the Lee movie because he was the hardass from the comic. And while both films have good things in it, nothing will ever beat Hulk jumping and fighting the army in the desert from the first movie. Nothing.

 

[Stripesy Strip]

Basically, yeah. The 1977 pilot is still miles above the other two. I think the lack of money and studios and fans restrictions allowed the makers to go to the very core of the story. Never saw a Hulk portrayal that had the very spirit of Frankenstein.

Strange isn't it that the tv movie is still miles ahead than big Hollywood movies. When he changes in the chamber and try to open it or when he changed in the rain were fantastic. It was like a horror movie(maybe that's the key? maybe the movies threats the style of Hulk in a too light cartoonish manner? it seems like the story of Hulk/Banner works better as a guy in a science lab)

Now both Hulk and TIH have severe studios interference. But whereas TIH was supposed to be a studio movie, Ang Lee's needed more freedom. Problem with Lee's movie for me is that it's stuck midways between the average superhero movie the studios demanded it to be and an Ang Lee movie, which is quite different. Problem with TIH for me is that it's just another superhero movie with a load of crappy humour and the average CGI fest.

I think Ang Lee had too much freedom, and Letterier had not enough freedom. So Lee made almost a too artsy flick for much of the movie while TIH felt like branding of a product: look this an action flick and look we're gonna have a guy that fights like Captain America to remind you people of the next Cap movie coming!

Hulk-wise, Lee's Hulk was fantastic in action movies. The desert scene with the tanks said everything about him. How desperately he wants to be left alone, how much humans chase him, how much he adores freeedom. The way he destroyed the tanks was simply anthological. But Hulk himself had a weird green color; too plastic-like. Never cared about him being that big.

TIH had a better design and the fights were good enough. But many times I felt Hulk posing for the camera, growling with his arms bent backwards and such.

The Hulk from the Ang Lee flick looked so unique in his reaction and so forth, it was Lee himself that was playing the character for motion capture. But yea too green, too Shreck. The other Hulk had the right color but had the typical body builder body of a Lou Feringno and awful emo hair. If they could somehow use the motion capture from the first, use the same blocky form but make his face more simian then use the color and size of the second Hulk, it would be the ideal Hulk.

I was VERY dissapointed I didn't see ANY scary tranbsformation in ANY of the recent movies. Again, with a camera and cheap effects they did a much more effective transformation back in 1977: And another thing I never got to see was Hulk turning into Banner. Sure, TIH and the lab scene. But seriously, that showed me his feet mainly and still looked like a balloon deflating.

Agreed! The completly screwed up the metamorphosis. They never did anything memorable. They should watch the Howling and copy that.

And both CGI Hulks had their moments when they looked like cartoons.

The jury is still out on a CGI Hulk as far as i'm concerned.