Incredible Hulk (2003) vs Incredible hulk (2008) which you like more?

I really didnt think there was anyone in the world who would say they preferred the 2003 version to the 2008 version.
 
I never watched the 03 version until recently and I can’t say I enjoyed it much. 08 was entertaining but not as good as the newer marvel stuff. The only thing better about 03 is Connelly
 
I also found out the reason they not making a new solo hulk movie is because they sold the rights to Universal.
Marvel film cinema before they came together and started in 2008 before that they sold the rights to character Spiderman to Sony. That why they cannot use the two other spiderman movies series tied into there current Spiderman reboot.



I like 2003 Hulk more i think it better and more real also more dark story to it and the desert fight scenes and military stuff cool.





2011-01-16_132240_old-hulk-new-hulk.jpg


This thread deserves a poll.

Hulk (2003) had far more depth to its story than Incredible Hulk (2008). I didn't even really like the latter but really enjoyed the former. Bana was also a better Bruce Banner than Norton. Ruffalo has them both beat though.
 
2003 by miles and miles and miles.

In fact, that film still contains the single greatest moment in comic movie history for me.


tumblr_maze7qnN1S1rzsuwto1_400.gif
 
I think 2008 was better although I was disappointed in the fight between the two. And the Abomination
should of looked like comic version

But I do believe Bana was the better Banner I really do think we were robbed of some good
Hulk movies. And we need a poll on this.
 
I think 2008 was better although I was disappointed in the fight between the two. And the Abomination
should of looked like comic version

But I do believe Bana was the better Banner I really do think we were robbed of some good
Hulk movies. And we need a poll on this.
Bana is the best Hulk we've ever gotten.

Mark Ruffalo might be the better overall actor, and Edward Norton certainly is, both are fantastic, but Bana is still the best we've ever gotten. This includes the 80's TV series. I still feel as if we haven't seen a truly great performance in the 'cerebral savage' paradigm, yet (i.e. The Hulk, Hank McCoy aka The Beast, etc.). I think we've gotten some tremendous angry man superhero/antihero performances (ex. Jack Earle Haley as Rorschach in The Watchmen; Michael Fassbender in X-Men: First Class; Hugh Jackman in Logan).

I just don't think we've seen someone pull off the simmering archetype of the supremely rational thinking man who is in a perpetual war with an uncontrollable, raging internal anger; a man who clings to reason with the desperation of a refugee clinging to a dinghy-- who understands he glides upon an ocean of rage in which he will drown and be consumed without it.
 
Last edited:
'03. Ang Lee's Hulk is amazing.
Ed Norton's sucks. Everything about it is inferior.
Bana > Norton (as Banner)
Connelly > Tyler (as everything)
Elliot > Hurt (as Ross)
Norton's Hulk is 10' tall and has a 32" waist. Gay.
Its too dark.
Abomination was a good idea but poorly realized.
Blonsky vs. Hulk was really cool though.

full agreement
 
Bana is the best Hulk we've ever gotten.

Mark Ruffalo might be the better overall actor, and Edward Norton certainly is, both are fantastic, but Bana is still the best we've ever gotten. This includes the 80's TV series. I still feel as if we haven't seen a truly great performance in the 'cerebral savage' paradigm, yet (i.e. The Hulk, Hank McCoy aka The Beast, etc.). I think we've gotten some tremendous angry man superhero/antihero performances (ex. Jack Earle Haley as Rorschach in The Watchmen; Michael Fassbender in X-Men: First Class; Hugh Jackman in Logan).

I just don't think we've seen someone pull off the simmering archetype of the supremely rational thinking man who is in a perpetual war with an uncontrollable, raging internal anger; a man who clings to reason with the desperation of a refugee clinging to a dinghy-- who understands he glides upon an ocean of rage in which he will drown and be consumed without it.

Bana is a great actor as well. Criminally underrated and underutilized. He may not be as talented as Norton, but he's certainly better than Ruffalo, who is a one trick pony (A modern day Alan Alda whiney narcissist (but great at that)).
 
Bana is the best Hulk we've ever gotten.

Mark Ruffalo might be the better overall actor, and Edward Norton certainly is, both are fantastic, but Bana is still the best we've ever gotten. This includes the 80's TV series. I still feel as if we haven't seen a truly great performance in the 'cerebral savage' paradigm, yet (i.e. The Hulk, Hank McCoy aka The Beast, etc.). I think we've gotten some tremendous angry man superhero/antihero performances (ex. Jack Earle Haley as Rorschach in The Watchmen; Michael Fassbender in X-Men: First Class; Hugh Jackman in Logan).

I just don't think we've seen someone pull off the simmering archetype of the supremely rational thinking man who is in a perpetual war with an uncontrollable, raging internal anger; a man who clings to reason with the desperation of a refugee clinging to a dinghy-- who understands he glides upon an ocean of rage in which he will drown and be consumed without it.

I agree. No one has really nailed the essence of the character.

I like Ruffalo, but he doesn't even come across as that angry, even in the 2012 version, where they were still treating Hulk as a bit of a wild card. Even then, by the end of the film, he was playing pretty nicely with others. Since Avengers II, the Hulk has honestly just come across as surly as opposed to consumed with undying rage.

Since the Hulk has been pretty team-oriented since Avengers 1, they've avoided playing up the Frankenstein's monster angle, for obvious reasons; if you do a movie about Banner truly struggling with the Hulk's raw, untamed anger, the movie will have to be about the Hulk; there won't be room to deal with much else.

Honestly, I think that a Hulk movie might need to get the R-rated treatment a la Deadpool or Logan in order to do the property justice. The Hulk as a character study works best when you can create the tension of Banner barely managing to contain himself, surrounded by people who he'll tear through like tissue-paper if he loses control.

For that kind of Hulk movie to work, you need a director who understands the cinematic value of the threat and anticipation of violence. I don't think Tarantino is suitable for this kind of property for a number of reasons, but his sort of ability to create anticipation and tension would be hugely useful in making a Hulk movie work.
 
The 2003 version is basically unwatchable. Nobody goes to see a goddamn Hulk movie for 2 hours of daddy issues and less than ten minutes of action against shitty cgi mutant poodles.


Fuck that movie.
 
The Ang Lee one gets a lot of hate but I liked it. I also liked the Norton one. The bad guy in the Norton one was better. I like Tim Roth. Its a toss up for me.
 
'03. Ang Lee's Hulk is amazing.
Ed Norton's sucks. Everything about it is inferior.
Bana > Norton (as Banner)
Connelly > Tyler (as everything)
Elliot > Hurt (as Ross)
Norton's Hulk is 10' tall and has a 32" waist. Gay.
Its too dark.
Abomination was a good idea but poorly realized.
Blonsky vs. Hulk was really cool though.

too dark? 2008?

i thought 2003 was more dark with the prison sentence his dad, killing wife by accident, trying kill his son. But i liked that about it.

2008 was like wannabe dark to me it just did not have story that i cared for. The people shitting on 2003 Hulk seem to be saying it becasue it was too long, and not enough action. Well that to me says more about some critics if they cannot appreciate story.
 
too dark? 2008?

i thought 2003 was more dark with the prison sentence his dad, killing wife by accident, trying kill his son. But i liked that about it.

2008 was like wannabe dark to me it just did not have story that i cared for. The people shitting on 2003 Hulk seem to be saying it becasue it was too long, and not enough action. Well that to me says more about some critics if they cannot appreciate story.

The cinematography not the context.

'08's story was cookie cutter b.s. and it was filmed to hide much of the cgi flaws (or to enhance the weak cgi).

'03 was a truly dark story and the cinematography was off the chain. Look at how much of that movie was filmed in the bright sun and look at how it stands up even today.
 
I would say 2008 movie is, by far, much more faithful at the comics and the classic serie so is the better movie.
I rate Norton well over Ruffalo as Banner , Ruffolo is way too big and muscolar to play Banner and the Hulk that they made from him, using CGI is still a little too tall and bright.
 
2003 Hulk is such a better movie than the 2008 one

It's not even close
 
Back
Top