Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I know it technically isn't "Norton's" Hulk, but whatever.

The two start off fighting in the same part of New York that Hulk fought Abom in.

In particular, I suppose the questions are which version is stronger, more durable, resourceful, etc.

Well the new Hulk fought and beat Abomination and as a whole, suffered a lot more punishment and came back than the previous Hulk did.

So on that basis, I'd say the new Hulk. Although I'd have to say that while the new Hulk does better on average, he didn't do anything like swinging a tank around and throwing it to the horizon.

Although Ang Lee's Hulk grew with his anger, so drawing upon that, there's no telling how big that version could become.

I still say new Hulk.

-AC

So, a terrible concept should not lend credence to a new version of a terrible concpt.

Like Superman, the Hulk is a horrible character. And he isn't a terrible character because he owns others or is more powerful. He's a terrible character because he ilustrates zero personality: just like superman. Superman sucks because he has no dimensionality. The Hulk, Superman and Spiderman exhibit zero personality. Hulk get mad! Superman escapes all logic, spiderman illustrate some measure of distillation of uninteresting'ness.

Quite frankly, Spider-Man, the Fantasti Four, The Hulk, Superman & the Avengers all strike me as disposable characters.

I mean, REALLY, who can't see the Avengers as anything other than a forum for heroes that had passed their time?

That being said: I look forward to Captain America v. Red Skull.

Not touching this one with a 10ft flag pole.

Haha, DK hates Marvel (and Superman...which anyone should, really), eh?

Though, are you talking about the comics or the movies, because no personality is kinda weird attribute especially for Spider Man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, DK hates Marvel (and Superman...which anyone should, really), eh?

Though, are you talking about the comics or the movies, because no personality is kinda weird attribute especially for Spider Man.

No, I don't hate Marvel. In fact, other than Batman, I prefer it. However, I hate the Hulk. I just find him to be an uninteresting character. And the same with Superman. And I do not understand re-booting the movie franchise. But I have no doubt that the Norton version will do better, because the advertising has been non-stop.

As for the others I mentioned, they are absolute proof that a hero is only as interesting as his villains. And that says a lot about the Hulk. He's boring and his villains strike me as some writer trying too hard. Spider-Man has some pretty decent opponents, so I can get behind him a little more. And other than Doctor Doom, I find the FF to have totally lacked any develpoment in their 40 years. They didn't become remotely interesting until the Franklin angle was introduced.

I know others feel differently about the Hulk or the FF, but that's just how they've always struck me. I had on friend that was really into the Hulk, Superman and the Juggernaut. It very soon became apparent that when it came to comic books, we had little to discuss.

I'm talking about both the comic books and the movies.

I share your opinion on Fantastic Four, Hulk and Superman, though, due to my lack of interest that is relatively uneducated ... and as you said yourself Spider-Man does have some interesting villains. I do like Lex Luthor though...

I've always found Hulk's angles to be interesting because it's as much, sometimes more so, about Banner than it is about Hulk. If it was just about Hulk, I'd understand. So I guess that hinges on how you view Banner, if he's not to your taste then you won't enjoy the comics. Hulk has never really been about fighting people, his biggest opponent is himself, and that's what it's about, that's what Ang Lee was trying to get across. Despite apparently seeming invincible, he is beatable, he is able to be hurt, it just doesn't often happen in fights, which is why his power is so formidable.

It's not as cheap as Superman who has gone from being able to leap buildings and run faster than a train, to being able to move planets.

It just so happens that when you are Hulk, you attract attention of bad and good, so that's where his other characters come in. All of this is wasted, though, because you don't like him, and that's cool.

I've personally never enjoyed Thor's comics for the reasons you don't enjoy Hulk, and I can see why you (Or anybody) wouldn't enjoy Hulk. If you can't get into a story or behind a character, I can understand that. It's just that nowadays, Hulk has a lot of unnecessary, baseless haters for no reason than him being stronger than someone they like.

I've never enjoyed Spider-Man's villains, really. Besides Dr. Doom the F4 are the ones who are always involved in cosmic ongoings, so that's why I feel their comics are usually good, because it's usually a big event.

That said, I think Captain America is shit. Complete, dated shit.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That said, I think Captain America is shit. Complete, dated shit.

-AC

I don't dislike the Hulk because he's strong. In fact, that's why I mentioned the friend I mentioned; because his sole reason for finding a character interesting was their strength. That's why he was into Hulk, Superman and Juggernaut.

And Captain America is dated. That's one reason I said what I did about the Avengers. It's just a club for characters who are no longer interesting enough to carry a title on their own. Personally, I don't read Captain America comics anymore because I think they should all take place in the WW2 era. And this is why I'm looking forward to the movie, because I understand it's all going to take place during WW2.

You know, come to think of it, Bardock might be right. I don't seem to like very many Marvel characters, either.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't dislike the Hulk because he's strong. In fact, that's why I mentioned the friend I mentioned; because his sole reason for finding a character interesting was their strength. That's why he was into Hulk, Superman and Juggernaut.

And Captain America is dated. That's one reason I said what I did about the Avengers. It's just a club for characters who are no longer interesting enough to carry a title on their own. Personally, I don't read Captain America comics anymore because I think they should all take place in the WW2 era. And this is why I'm looking forward to the movie, because I understand it's all going to take place during WW2.

You know, come to think of it, Bardock might be right. I don't seem to like very many Marvel characters, either.

Well Iron Man's ongoing comics, as well as Thor, have almost always been successful, Avengers or not. Captain America remains one of Marvel's biggest sellers, if I'm not mistaken. So they can carry titles on their own financially, but if you're referring to artistically, I'd be inclined to agree mostly.

I don't think Captain America or Thor have good singular comics. I think Thor is a very exciting premise, though, so he works as a crossover or group person. Iron Man's comics I've personally enjoyed a lot more lately, the recent run is very good, the post-Civil War stuff.

-AC

the Hulk struggled with a couple mutated dogs in Ang lee's translation. Nortons Hulk battle's abomination, so...

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
the Hulk struggled with a couple mutated dogs in Ang lee's translation. Nortons Hulk battle's abomination, so...

Well, that doesn't really mean anything if Roth's Abomination would struggle with a couple mutated dogs, eh?

Originally posted by Devil King
So, a terrible concept should not lend credence to a new version of a terrible concpt.


Go watch it, it's far better than Ang Lee's.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, that doesn't really mean anything if Roth's Abomination would struggle with a couple mutated dogs, eh?

yes, but my very fragile point relies on the idea that...,nvm, you're right

I liked both of them.

The second one had more of the stuff that Tired Hiker was talking about...which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Ang Lee's hulk healed rather fast from that Nuclear explosion...the new Hulk's wounds didn't hell, which pissed me off. Ang Lee's Hulk seemed physically stronger as well.

Ang Lee's Hulk was larger after the second time he transformed....Sooo..

It's rather easy to say Ang Lee's was better.

Hulk 2008 ftw

The old Hulk was bigger and stronger, and had another power, it got stronger the more pain he felt, and it had no limit, I mean, NO LIMIT, it also got bigger, and for all I know, if it took enough abuse, it could grow to be a mile tall.

The new Hulk is a little smaller, and a little weaker, but it can talk, and it is smarter, and angrier, it might not have as much fat, but it has a lot more muscle, so it's faster, and what it uses to fight with is, well, everything around it. It doesn't just pick up stuff, it picks up stuff and makes weapons out of them, such as boxing gloves, shields, spears, boomarangs, it can also use pressure to create sound, cause the ground to distort by hitting it.

New Hulk FTW.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I liked both of them.

The second one had more of the stuff that Tired Hiker was talking about...which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Ang Lee's hulk healed rather fast from that Nuclear explosion...the new Hulk's wounds didn't hell, which pissed me off. Ang Lee's Hulk seemed physically stronger as well.

Ang Lee's Hulk was larger after the second time he transformed....Sooo..

It's rather easy to say Ang Lee's was better.

Since when was Ang Lee's Hulk involved in a nuclear attack?

I may be forgetting.

-AC

In the finale fight when Banner's father is absorbing Hulk's power, while in the process of absorbing him Ross drops a nuke (Or what appears to be one. It has a mushroom cloud) on both fo them. The combination of Hulk and the nuke's power overloads and kills Bruce's dad, and the Hulk uh.. regens from it I guess.

EDIT- Nevermind. According to wiki, it was a "gamma charge bomb".

It's a gamma bomb.

Technically, that's more powerful since gamma explosions are the most powerful in science, allegedly.

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King


You know, come to think of it, Bardock might be right. I don't seem to like very many Marvel characters, either.

I, on the other hand, do like Marvel characters very much. What I don't like about Marvel is how they're writing the characters or the stories. Any marvel fanboy coming here and telling me that OMD or WWH or even Civil War are good stories for the characters is wasting his time. I don't buy it for a second. It's the same when other bat-heads tell me that Morrison is doing a great job in the Batman book. It's pure nonsense! Anyone with common sense can clearly see that Paul Dini work on TEC is far above Morrison. Love the characters...critique the stories...that's what I'm all about.

313

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I, on the other hand, do like Marvel characters very much. What I don't like about Marvel is how they're writing the characters or the stories. Any marvel fanboy coming here and telling me that OMD or WWH or even Civil War are good stories for the characters is wasting his time. I don't buy it for a second. It's the same when other bat-heads tell me that Morrison is doing a great job in the Batman book. It's pure nonsense! Anyone with common sense can clearly see that Paul Dini work on TEC is far above Morrison. Love the characters...critique the stories...that's what I'm all about.

313

Then it is mighty good that we're not going around trying to do that, isn't it? As far as I can tell, you're the one trying so desperately to have a pop at the character (Hulk) you claim to like, at every possible opportunity, irrespective of storyline or whatever. Nor am I the only one noticing this.

I like various Hulk storylines. I like Hulk: Grey, I like Future Imperfect, I like World War Hulk, and I respect that you don't. I am also more than aware that all you need is to see the letters "Hu..." and you go off on one, so the last thing any sensible fan would do is bait you, because this has gone somewhat far enough. One wrong word for or against someone you like/dislike and you're off starting spam threads...sorry, "joke" threads.

It's just a shame you can't afford everyone else the same courtesy. Nobody is stalking you, trying to convince you of anything. You just seem intent on telling us how much World War Hulk made you somehow defy science and start a menstrual cycle, and to be fair, Dwarf, we honestly couldn't give a sh*t. You don't like it? I respect that, try it sometime, instead of branding someone a fanboy and a sucker for, heaven forbid, liking a storyline you didn't. You have every single right to express your opinion, no matter how ill-informed and uneducated it may be, and I'd defend your right to it, but insisting that people are forcing shit on you, "coming to (you)" is ridiculous.

We can't actually seem to have a movie thread involving Hulk without you piping in with Haterade.

-AC

5JsDylEPNh0&NR

Note the healing factor at 1:01. That was more or less what I was referring to. I thought that it was a low yield nuke...I could be mistaken. He DID survive the gamma bomb, though...which would more than serve to prove my point.

Also, Ang Lee's DID use objects around him. He used one of tanks turrets to block an incoming shell, just like a shield. He then later uses like a baseball bat on one of the tanks. Very similar to TIH. Also, Ang Lee's Hulk seemed to be more intelligent than TIH towards the end of the Ang Lee film. He formed a complete coherent statement at the end of the film when his father was absorbing his powers. He said, "Then go ahead and take it all." He also used tactics against the helicopters in the desert.

One thing I forgot all about...

Ang Lee's Hulk was faster.

New Hulk is smarter and more recourceful. But Lee's Hulk could leap higher and move faster.

"In this film, the madder the Hulk gets, the larger he becomes. The first time he appears, he is 9 feet tall, the second time he is 12 feet and the third time he is 15 feet tall. His skin would also be coloured grayish-green in his first appearance, and afterwards remain greenish. The ILM animators thus had to create three distinctly different Hulks."

"According to the animators at Industrial Light & Magic, the Hulk weighs 3452 lbs, and can exert 14 tons of pressure/inch2. His skin is 10 times as strong as Kevlar. His chest measures 208 inches, his waist 130 inches, his foot 51 inches and his neck 81 inches. If he wore shoes, they would be size 87. He can move at a top speed of 300 mph and cross 3-4 miles in a single jump."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0286716/trivia

Ang lee's interpretation seems unarguably more powerful, but the new Hulk feels more savage and badass in every way.

First of all: Ang Lee's Hulk for the win. Bigger, stronger, healed faster. 2008 Hulk looked meaner and more realistic (even the thighs were better proportioned), but I prefer my Hulks a little blockier, and I don't need to see every single muscle fiber even when he's at rest.

Secondly: I find Banner-Hulk a near-perfect literary character. Who hasn't ever wrestled with their anger; who's never wished to sometimes "Hulk out?" Major catharsis. This is classic Man vs Himself, perhaps best exemplified by Jekyll and Hyde.

Thirdly: is there such a thing as a "gamma bomb"? Afaik, there are varying degrees of nuclear explosion "cleanliness" (ratio of radiation to shockwave); and electron-positron pairs convert to gamma rays; and there are cobalt bombs...but I don't believe there is a real "gamma bomb" (whatever that actually means; maybe an electron-positron warhead?)

Well Ang Lee's Hulk took a Gamma Bomb, showed greater strength and reflexes and had better healing, so I would say Ang Lee.

Norton's Hulk showed a lot more cunning and intelligence than Ang Lee's, so my money's on him.

I just saw the newer Hulk recently and I have to say that the Ang Hulk seems faster and stronger than the new one. Here are some obversations:

*The newer Hulk was not shown to have half the jumping ability as the old Hulk.
* He seemed to run not nearly as fast, for example army Jeeps were keeping up with him.
*He didn't fling Tanks and Heli's around.
EDIT: he did but did not fling them nearly as far.
*He did not jump up and catch a helicopter like the old Hulk could do.
* Bullets seemed to hurt him more than they should have (for example the park scene)... I don't know if they had this affect on the Ang hulk.

Even IF could say that the new Hulk was nearly equal on strength and stamina, there is no way he is faster. So my bet is on OLD HULK.

On a side note: In the newer Hulk movie it was bad-ass to see him do a thunderclap .

Why is he still called Ang Lee's Hulk? I could've sworn I saw Eric Bana change into the Hulk in that movie...

Anyway, this fight could go on for quite a while, but I believe Norton's Hulk would win. He's much more savage & brutal.

As far as likes go New Hulk. But Lee's could win this. He showed off some ridiculous stuff.

Yep, he was too overpowered, actually, and that's one thing that turned a lot of people off, so to speak. Norton's Hulk was a bit better in that he wasn't too powerful, and yet, he wasn't weak either.