- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 2,923
- Reaction score
- 485
I really didnt think there was anyone in the world who would say they preferred the 2003 version to the 2008 version.
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.
Bana is the best Hulk we've ever gotten.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.
'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.
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 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.
2003 Hulk
The first superhero movie to take an intelligent storyboard approach.
'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.