2003 hulk movie sucked balls.
2008 movie was good. Better than iron man.
Edward norton! For the win!!
Gamma dogs. Barf.
__________________ Quotes from Hia8:
"I claimed that the science is sometimes faulty."
"You don't understand. This is fiction. That means none of this stuff really happened."
"There is no writer to purposely ignore a character's natural ability just because it suits the story."
"in some cases because the writer knows that Character A will dominate Character B easily and refuses to allow this to happen for the sake of the story."
gamma poodles, daddy issues, poor action scenes, bad haircut, wrong shade of green; the 2008 version was grittier, better looking, and more faithfull to the character's personality and history
'03 Hulk wins easily 10/10 and was also a better movie.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Why mention the lame poodle but forget the beastly gamma pitbulls and the way Hulk smashes them after brutal fight with them.
Daddy issues? Haircut? what? you dislike movies for reasons as shallow as this?
Poor action? You not like the bit where they chase Hulk in desert and smashes tanks and helicopters?
How is reboot more faithful to character personality and history?
We don't see any of his history for a start, the movie starts with him already Hulk.
Hulk reboot shows none of Hulk's abilities properly. Ang Lee one does. We see him heal fast, bulletproof skin, massive jumping and running fast and he is much much stronger. Hulk in reboot is too weak.
Hulk 2003 has better story, better characters and better Hulk
2003 Hulk film was DEFINITELY a better movie. I'd give that one an 8.5 to a 9 out of 10.
The second Hulk film, Leterrier's film, was not as good as the first. It still kicked ass. I gave that on a 7 out of 10.
Overall, I liked the look of the body of Hulk, but the head/face was a bit off. The head of the first one was a bit better, but the body was too soft.
Story? First blew the the second waaaaaaay out of the water.
Sticking to the comics? The first did better at that, but not as well as I would have hoped. The second really just does whatever the **** it wanted.
Hulk's awesomeness? First, by far. You had a sense of "unbeatableness" from Ang Lee's Hulk. You really could think, "Damn, this guy really IS the strongest there is." The second? Not so much. You also didn't get a sense of the 2008 Hulk being this unstoppable force of nature that would make The Avengers shit themselves.
The 03 film gets way too much shit from amateur movie critics and comic book fans. I don't get it, either. It's almost as bad as the same group hating the PT but loving the OT...or at least criticizing the shit out of the PT and not applying the same meter stick to the OT.
PT = Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars.
OT= Original Trilogy of Star Wars.
90% of kids will not like it because it is aimed at more mature audience and even by time gets to action they will not like, as they already formed opinion on it by then and mindset will not change
bet you will appreciate it lot more and see how good it is
KMC Community Forums
Mar 15th, 2011 10:06 PM
