Pete's "What worked and didn't work" list for the Hulk
Alex Cain
"DadIsGreatGiveUsTheChocolateCake" <petep...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in
message news:20030621133125...@mb-m22.aol.com...
> Disclaimer: I'm doing this list from a "smart mark" perspective; actually
> stepping outside the film and analyzing the sum of it's parts, in
isolation.
> From the mark perspective of acutally sitting there and watching,
hearing, and
> experiencing the movie, I really really liked it and it was worth the
money.
> I'm taking this from the critics' point of view:
>
> What Worked:
>
> -The CGI. Yeah, it wasn't perfect at all times, but it was not the
> movie-killer people were worried it might be. Not even close. IOW, it
got me
> to suspend disbelief and believe that what was on the screen was really
there.
> Much like buying into Superman flying even though you know he's being
pulled
> by wires, or the camera has been sped up, or that he's flying in front of
a
> rear-projection screen with a fan blowing his cape. The crowd bought it
too,
> as there were no titters or chuckles at the CGI.
>
> -The desert battle scene. Great showcase scene that was pure comic-book
> masturbation.
>
> -The realism of the Hulk's movement and fighting. Not talking about the
> realness of the CGI or anything. I'm talking about his movement being
like a
> real person's would be, and not like Neo in the Matrix. When Hulk bursts
> through a wall early on he falls down from the force. When he picks up
the
> gammasphere he drops it as if he's just going so full-out raged that he's
just
> not in control of his strength. When he knocks a helicopter to the ground
the
> force of it bowls him over too. Things like that. Too often in action
> flicks these days we get the "80 punches in a minute with crisp,
superfast,
> choreographed kicks and punches and blocks." Yeah, movies are never
truly
> realistic (If they were, we'd be seeing Darth Vader having to interrupt a
> meeting with his Star Destroyer captains so he could take a piss break)
but
> it's gotten boring how video-game perfect everyone is in action scenes
now, as
> if fighting 100 Agent Smiths doesn't even cause someone to break a sweat
or
> fight hard. Kudos to ILM for capturing that.
>
> I really think they did that to enhance the Hulk's realness. If the Hulk
were
> too perfect, he really would look like a video game character. It also
worked
> into the narrative, showing the Hulk's uncontrollable rage.
>
> -The split screen panels. Used to detriment in a couple of shots, but
otherwise
> very innovative and cool. Honestly wouldn't surprise me if it started
getting
> copied by other films over the next year or so. Yes, I know 24 did it
first
> (and to those people I'd say that Woodstock did it 30 years earlier so
FOAD)
> but that's a TV show.
>
> -The Ferrigno and Stan Lee cameo. Everybody liked that one. Lou looked
huge
> as ever.
>
> -One scene that struck me in a weird way was when Hulk is on the Golden
Gate
> Bridge and a fighter jet is trying to pull up and is about to hit the
bridge,
> Hulk actually gets a concerned look on his face and jumps on the plane,
thus
> keeping it under the bridge. At least that's how it came off to me, that
Hulk
> was trying to help. And it's good that it isn't that obvious. Most
popcorn
> flicks try to be too one-dimensional, turning Hulk into basically a noble
> savage. Lee leaves it again, more realistic. Hulk is a raging beast but
> occasionally he is going to do the right thing. He's not either or.
Much
> like all of us.
>
> What Did Not Work
>
> -The last 20 minutes, from the time David Banner turns into Absorbing Man
to
> the end. It just seems too tacked on and awkward. I mean, think of it
this
> way, they created a supervillian within the last 20 minutes, after 3 Hulk
outs,
> the desert battle scene, and the shorter SF battle scene. I understand
that,
> much like the Turn Back the Time scene in Superman, they needed a big
ending
> (the original ending of Superman was simply Superman stopping the nuclear
> missiles, but in the process releasing the Phantom Zone villians as a
> cliffhanger for Superman II). And in this case David Banner was integral
to
> the story. But it really did just seem tacked on.
>
> Also, the final fight scene was way too confusing and murky. We see
David
> takes on the form of rocks and water, then something about him wanting
Hulk's
> power, but then Bruce gives him the power and then David doesn't want it,
then
> he starts turning into some energy field and then just blows up. I
dunno,
> just wasn't too clear what was going on. I guess it was some deeper,
> metaphorical, metatextual thing or something.
>
> -The film was a lot shallower than it was trying to be. Hey, I don't
like
> pure popcorn cheesball characterization. At the same time I'm no pussy
> arthouse snob who wants darnkess and duplicity and duality and subtext in
my
> action films. A good superhero film's depth should only be a couple
inches
> or so below the surface. Nothing too cerebral, just interesting enough.
And
> that's fine that Hulk only had that. It's just that the way it was
presented
> and scripted it tried to be even deeper, when really the only relationship
> between Bruce Banner and Hulk is that Bruce is a bottled up guy -not that
we
> really saw much of that bottled up nature- and has some repressed memories
and
> turns into Hulk when he's angry.
> What I'm saying is that it didn't seem like his repressed memories had
much to
> do with him turning into Hulk. Really, he only turned into Hulk when
his
> anger got out of control. And then when he was the Hulk, it wasn't like
his
> rage reflected his anger. He only did stuff when attacked and otherwise
just
> walked around. And then when he turned back into Banner it really wasn't
> because his rage was subdued, it was because he saw Jennifer Connelly.
>
> Basically, it just didn't seem like there was much relationship between
Hulk
> and Banner. And again, that's fine, but Ang Lee was going for a much more
> psychodramatic connection, and it just wasn't there.
>
> In the comics, Hulk wants to stay the Hulk and hates Banner for his
weakness
> and loves being Hulk for the pwer and freedom. In the TV show, David
Banner
> didn't want to be the Hulk. Didn't want to Hulk out. Feared he might
hurt
> someone. The movie Hulk is literally Jekyl and Hyde, Dr. Jekyl just
turns
> into a beast that breaks things. No reason or motivation.
>
> -Talbot. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too one-dimensional. Plus, he also
seemed a
> bit tacked on. Like Lee wanted to/got pressured into working some
conventional
> popcorn stuff into the movie like the evil industrialist who gets his in
the
> end, but he just wasn't incorporated into the movie. More like he was
grafted
> on, in between other scenes. I mean, he doesn't really do much. At
first I
> thought he was going to be a major character, but really, the movie
wouldn't
> have suffered one bit if he was just removed completely.
>
>
> And that's about it. My opinion is, box-office wise, what is going to
kill the
> movie is not the CGI. The CGI exceeded expectations and fears. It's the
word
> of mouth. People are either going to be too dumb (their fault) or too
confused
> (Ang Lee's fault) to recommend it to others. I personally enjoyed the
flick,
> and at worst, found it interesting. So if it fails, it's going to be an
> interesting failure, much like Tron was 21 years ago. I personally give
it 3
> stars. A well done, well put together, well directed flick.
>
> -------
> "Vince Russo, if you EVER touch me again, I'll rip your face off and use
your
> cranium as a flower pot!" - Raven, 6/4/03
>
Smak186..
> > What Worked:
> >
> > -The CGI. Yeah, it wasn't perfect at all times, but it was not the
> > movie-killer people were worried it might be. Not even close. IOW, it
> got me
> > to suspend disbelief and believe that what was on the screen was really
> there.
I thought most of the Hulk scenes looked awesome. The only part that had
that CGI cartoony look was when Bruce was changing into the Hulk in his
house in front of Talbot.
The part where Hulk changes back to Banner in Frisco was well done.
> > -The desert battle scene. Great showcase scene that was pure comic-book
> > masturbation.
That stuff was great. Loved the Hulk running around and around really
fast, and the over head jumping stuff.
There was a far off shot of the Hulk that sorta looked like a guy in a
big suit. Did they do that sorta thing here and there?
> > -The realism of the Hulk's movement and fighting. Not talking about the
> > realness of the CGI or anything. I'm talking about his movement being
> like a
> > real person's would be, and not like Neo in the Matrix. When Hulk bursts
> > through a wall early on he falls down from the force. When he picks up
> the
> > gammasphere he drops it as if he's just going so full-out raged that he's
> just
> > not in control of his strength. When he knocks a helicopter to the ground
> the
> > force of it bowls him over too. Things like that. Too often in action
> > flicks these days we get the "80 punches in a minute with crisp,
> superfast,
> > choreographed kicks and punches and blocks." Yeah, movies are never
> truly
> > realistic (If they were, we'd be seeing Darth Vader having to interrupt a
> > meeting with his Star Destroyer captains so he could take a piss break)
> but
> > it's gotten boring how video-game perfect everyone is in action scenes
> now, as
> > if fighting 100 Agent Smiths doesn't even cause someone to break a sweat
> or
> > fight hard. Kudos to ILM for capturing that.
He also had to learn to "fly" at first rather than just being able to do
it. And he also was winded after all that jumping and fighting.
> > -One scene that struck me in a weird way was when Hulk is on the Golden
> Gate
> > Bridge and a fighter jet is trying to pull up and is about to hit the
> bridge,
> > Hulk actually gets a concerned look on his face and jumps on the plane,
> thus
> > keeping it under the bridge. At least that's how it came off to me, that
> Hulk
> > was trying to help. And it's good that it isn't that obvious. Most
> popcorn
> > flicks try to be too one-dimensional, turning Hulk into basically a noble
> > savage. Lee leaves it again, more realistic. Hulk is a raging beast but
> > occasionally he is going to do the right thing. He's not either or.
> Much
> > like all of us.
That's the way I saw that scene too.. The Bruce part of The Hulk was
doing the "right thing" there..
What did they go to another bridge later in that scene? I figured they
would smash that one but didn't..
> > What Did Not Work
> >
> > -The last 20 minutes, from the time David Banner turns into Absorbing Man to
> > the end. It just seems too tacked on and awkward.
They should have ended it when the Hulk changed back to Bruce in San
Fran. To me all the David Banner stuff was boring and not needed. More
Hulk! Less dad!
My 8 year old liked it a lot. She wasn't bored and knew that was Bruce's
dad before he revealed himself to us. But there were a lot of kids
making noises during the slow parts.
Outt..
Jeff.
Kal Alexander
A friend of mine took the original Star Wars movie and edited out all
the scenes with Skywalker in them. Wasn't too bad. What needs to
be done here is edit out all family and Dad scenes. I almost fell asleep
during some of those scenes. But then, I also fell asleep during a
viewing of the Godfather once, too.
--
Later
Kal
---
Raise my hand if you believe in
telekinesis.
Ronald O. Christian
wrote:
>> -The split screen panels. Used to detriment in a couple of shots, but
>otherwise
>> very innovative and cool. Honestly wouldn't surprise me if it started
>getting
>> copied by other films over the next year or so. Yes, I know 24 did it
>first
>> (and to those people I'd say that Woodstock did it 30 years earlier so
>FOAD)
>> but that's a TV show.
Split screen was pretty common in the '70's, and was usually pretty
irritating. The innovation here was (a) the combination of fixed and
"floating" splits, (b) using splits as wipes, and (c) how the splits
are integrated into the direction. (The flow of the screens directs
your eye naturally on what the direction wants you to pay attention.)
Ron
-
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.iswizards.com
Definition: Nelp: Contraction of "no help". Colloquial: Help
messages that are of no help whatsoever. Pretains to help files,
messages or documentation that convey no useful information, or
pedantically repeat the blindingly obvious.
Wavemaker
"Ronald O. Christian" wrote:
>
> Split screen was pretty common in the '70's, and was usually
pretty
> irritating. The innovation here was (a) the combination of fixed
and
> "floating" splits, (b) using splits as wipes, and (c) how the
splits
> are integrated into the direction. (The flow of the screens
directs
> your eye naturally on what the direction wants you to pay
attention.)
Yes, there were dynamic here, not static at all. A very fresh
approach, I thought. I was skeptical as to whether or not Lee would
make them work, but it didn't take me long to appreciate and enjoy
what he was doing.
Derek Janssen
Seemed to kind of hit on the right idea by accident--
Every new post-X Marvel Movie has to Get Something Right, and still be
identifiably different (to avoid being accused of just coasting on
"Spiderman" over and over):
"X-Men" nailed the Social Stuff and the Message, "Spiderman" paid geek
tribute to Historical Canon, "Daredevil" tried to explain why everybody
read it when Frank Miller was writing, and the Reed/Frost "Fantastic
Four"'s reportedly going for a stylized 60's Lee/Kirby feel.
So, what new "gimmick" territory's left to explore?
Well, Ang, having never done a "comic-book movie" before--and probably
never come into contact with good ol' US comics before this, let alone
Marvel--likely thought he should pay his own visual tribute to the
"comic-book style", with dynamic "panel" shots--
And as it turns out, good thing he chose a Marvel franchise to do it
with--Seeing as Marvel practically invented the "panel-cinematography"
style (an explosion here, an ominous eyes-closeup there), compared to
the DC dark ages...
...If Brian DePalma (assuming we're talking the
"Untouchables"/"Mission:Impossible" one) had been a Marvel geek, his
long-buried Split-screen Instincts could have nailed the idea
intentionally from Day One.
As it is, the Ang Lee Accident just happened to work out that way
anyway. : )
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Dawn Taylor
announced in front of God and everybody:
>As it is, the Ang Lee Accident just happened to work out that way
>anyway. : )
First is was, "No two ways about it -- this movie's gonna suck!!"
Then it was, "We all have to boycott this movie to show Hollywood a
thing or two!!!!"
Then it was, "Well, not all the early reviews are negative, so maybe
it doesn't COMPLETELY suck. But maybe we still ought to boycott it so
that Spider-Man II doesn't blow." **
Now it's, "Okay, people think it's good. but Ang Lee must have made a
good movie by accident."
Yeah, that's it. Ang Lee -- Ang Lee!! -- made a good movie by sheer
ACCIDENT.
Have you always been this guy, Derek, and I never noticed before?
Because honestly, I've been posting here for a couple of years and I
don't remember you acting like this big a jerk before.
Dawn
** I have to admit, the logic of this one escaped me entirely.
--
REVIEW: "The Hulk"
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=18783
In Focus Magazine:
http://www.infocusmag.com/03June/angels.htm
Derek Janssen
>
> >As it is, the Ang Lee Accident just happened to work out that way
> >anyway. : )
>
> First is was, "No two ways about it -- this movie's gonna suck!!"
Did look like that, didn't it?
> Then it was, "We all have to boycott this movie to show Hollywood a
> thing or two!!!!"
(No, it was "If it *is* bad, we have to tell people BEFORE they go to
see it anyway...I mean, really, 'Scooby-Doo' gets a *sequel*?--PEOPLE!
A little thought about the larger consequences of your opening-weekend
actions, please!")
> Then it was, "Well, not all the early reviews are negative, so maybe
> it doesn't COMPLETELY suck. But maybe we still ought to boycott it so
> that Spider-Man II doesn't blow." **
Only if it really *did* turn out to be bad--
But hey, I was as shocked as anyone. : )
> Now it's, "Okay, people think it's good. but Ang Lee must have made a
> good movie by accident."
>
> Yeah, that's it. Ang Lee -- Ang Lee!! -- made a good movie by sheer
> ACCIDENT.
No, as mentioned in another post ("'Bloom where you're planted' seems to
be the moral here"), it's "Even *he* may have realized he was planted in
the wrong place, so he tried to make the best of it and, um,
succeeded--But boy, that sure didn't look like the producers' idea
starting out..."
...So you see, it DOES make sense, in a larger structure.
> Have you always been this guy, Derek, and I never noticed before?
> Because honestly, I've been posting here for a couple of years and I
> don't remember you acting like this big a jerk before.
Oh, it's only panic that causes it, you know that. : )
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
Derek Janssen
>
> >As it is, the Ang Lee Accident just happened to work out that way
> >anyway. : )
>
> First is was, "No two ways about it -- this movie's gonna suck!!"
> Then it was, "We all have to boycott this movie to show Hollywood a
> thing or two!!!!"
> Then it was, "Well, not all the early reviews are negative, so maybe
> it doesn't COMPLETELY suck. But maybe we still ought to boycott it so
> that Spider-Man II doesn't blow." **
> Now it's, "Okay, people think it's good. but Ang Lee must have made a
> good movie by accident."
> Have you always been this guy, Derek, and I never noticed before?
...And besides, which would you rather have constituting this board:
Someone who suits and adapts his views to reflect newly available data,
or fanboys who believe their group "Stubbornness is loyalty!" act is
really funny and entertaining? ("Yeah, well, I STILL say he looks like
a Playstation Shrek!...I'm going to torch the video store when it comes out!")
One must be fluid, like the river. : )
Derek Janssen
dja...@rcn.com
DadIsGreatGiveUsTheChocolateCake
>From: "Smak186.." smak...@comcast.net
>Date: 6/21/2003 8:41 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3EF4FB2B...@comcast.net>
>
> "DadIsGreatGiveUsTheChocolateCake" <petep...@aol.comgoaway> wrote
>
>> > What Worked:
>> >
>> > -The CGI. Yeah, it wasn't perfect at all times, but it was not the
>> > movie-killer people were worried it might be. Not even close. IOW, it
>> got me
>> > to suspend disbelief and believe that what was on the screen was really
>> there.
>
>I thought most of the Hulk scenes looked awesome. The only part that had
>that CGI cartoony look was when Bruce was changing into the Hulk in his
>house in front of Talbot.
>
Yeah, it just didn't seem fluid enough, like you could tell where it stopped
being the real Bana and the CGI "in-between Bruce and Hulk Bana." But, that's
a small complaint and figure in two years when they start making Hulk 2, the
CGI can only get better, and ILM now has the template to work from, rather than
doing it from scratch.
>The part where Hulk changes back to Banner in Frisco was well done.
Very cool. You could tell that was one of ILM's showcase scenes.
>
>> > -The desert battle scene. Great showcase scene that was pure comic-book
>> > masturbation.
>
>That stuff was great. Loved the Hulk running around and around really
>fast, and the over head jumping stuff.
>
>There was a far off shot of the Hulk that sorta looked like a guy in a
>big suit. Did they do that sorta thing here and there?
I'm thinking your talking about the part after he flees from the helicopters,
is sitting down, then the helicopters come back and bury him in the rubble?
I noticed that too, but I believe they said it was all CGI, every frame, so
they did a good job of it if it was CGI. Really blended into the scenery.
Right. Just very realistic. I don't know if it's just Ang Lee and ILM paying
attention to detail or if it's that they felt this would add to the realism of
the CGI (video game characters and Shrek and the Green Giant don't huff and
puff and sweat and fall down).
>
>> > -One scene that struck me in a weird way was when Hulk is on the Golden
>> Gate
>> > Bridge and a fighter jet is trying to pull up and is about to hit the
>> bridge,
>> > Hulk actually gets a concerned look on his face and jumps on the plane,
>> thus
>> > keeping it under the bridge. At least that's how it came off to me,
>that
>> Hulk
>> > was trying to help. And it's good that it isn't that obvious. Most
>> popcorn
>> > flicks try to be too one-dimensional, turning Hulk into basically a noble
>> > savage. Lee leaves it again, more realistic. Hulk is a raging beast but
>> > occasionally he is going to do the right thing. He's not either or.
>> Much
>> > like all of us.
>
>That's the way I saw that scene too.. The Bruce part of The Hulk was
>doing the "right thing" there..
Yep.
>
>What did they go to another bridge later in that scene? I figured they
>would smash that one but didn't..
>
>> > What Did Not Work
>> >
>> > -The last 20 minutes, from the time David Banner turns into Absorbing Man
>to
>> > the end. It just seems too tacked on and awkward.
>
>They should have ended it when the Hulk changed back to Bruce in San
>Fran. To me all the David Banner stuff was boring and not needed. More
>Hulk! Less dad!
Like I mention elsewhere, I think Lee either wanted or was forced to add in a
big finale.
Much like Superman: The Movie's originally was supposed to just end with Supes
diverting the nukes and putting Lex in jail (but with the cliffhanger of one of
the nukes being diverted into space where it hits the Phantom Zone, much like
in the beginning of Superman II, freeing the villians), I'm guessing they
wanted something with more punch. I think it could have worked fine though,
ending it in San Fran, although they would have had to figure out a way to work
the father into the ending. How? I don't know, but the screenwriters are paid
big money to figure these things out, so they could have done it with enough
time.
It wasn't nearly enough to ruin the movie for me, but it was noticeable.
>
>My 8 year old liked it a lot. She wasn't bored and knew that was Bruce's
>dad before he revealed himself to us. But there were a lot of kids
>making noises during the slow parts.
Yeah, that's kids being kids, plus today we live in a ritalin culture. I'd
rather it be kids than rowdy teenagers kicking chairs and throwing popcorn at
each other.
>
>Outt..
>Jeff.
Dawn Taylor
announced in front of God and everybody:
>Dawn Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, that's it. Ang Lee -- Ang Lee!! -- made a good movie by sheer
>> ACCIDENT.
>
>No, as mentioned in another post ("'Bloom where you're planted' seems to
>be the moral here"), it's "Even *he* may have realized he was planted in
>the wrong place, so he tried to make the best of it and, um,
>succeeded--But boy, that sure didn't look like the producers' idea
>starting out..."
>
>...So you see, it DOES make sense, in a larger structure.
Not really. Only if you believe that Ang Lee is a one-trick pony who
stumbled into this job and decided to, oh, just try his hand at it on
a whim.
Dawn
trotsky
Smak186.. wrote:
> "DadIsGreatGiveUsTheChocolateCake" <petep...@aol.comgoaway> wrote
>
>
>>>What Worked:
>>>
>>>-The CGI. Yeah, it wasn't perfect at all times, but it was not the
>>>movie-killer people were worried it might be. Not even close. IOW, it
>>
>>got me
>>
>>>to suspend disbelief and believe that what was on the screen was really
>>
>>there.
>
>
> I thought most of the Hulk scenes looked awesome. The only part that had
> that CGI cartoony look was when Bruce was changing into the Hulk in his
> house in front of Talbot.
>
> The part where Hulk changes back to Banner in Frisco was well done.
>
>
>>>-The desert battle scene. Great showcase scene that was pure comic-book
>>>masturbation.
>>
>
> That stuff was great. Loved the Hulk running around and around really
> fast, and the over head jumping stuff.
>
> There was a far off shot of the Hulk that sorta looked like a guy in a
> big suit.
That's funny, Hulk didn't look anything like David Byrne to me.
trotsky
Yawn. Why do guys like you have so much trouble admitting that you're
merely trolls?
Franklin Harris
"Dawn Taylor" <dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:nvkbfvg5mukb9cv6t...@4ax.com...
> Have you always been this guy, Derek, and I never noticed before?
> Because honestly, I've been posting here for a couple of years and I
> don't remember you acting like this big a jerk before.
Good. I thought I was the only one who noticed.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"The truly psychotic don't need to cop an attitude." -- Poppy Z. Brite,
alt.horror, 2/21/03
Dawn Taylor
announced in front of God and everybody:
>
>
>Someone who suits and adapts his views to reflect newly available data,
>or fanboys who believe their group "Stubbornness is loyalty!" act is
>really funny and entertaining? ("Yeah, well, I STILL say he looks like
>a Playstation Shrek!...I'm going to torch the video store when it comes out!")
>
>One must be fluid, like the river. : )
I appreciate your fluidity, Derek. I do. It's the insistant trashing
of films you haven't seen and the begrudging "well, he made a good
film by _accident_!" posts that make me wonder if you're veering into
nutjob, tinfoil-hat-wearing Richland.
Dawn
Smak186..
> >There was a far off shot of the Hulk that sorta looked like a guy in a
> >big suit. Did they do that sorta thing here and there?
>
> I'm thinking your talking about the part after he flees from the helicopters,
> is sitting down, then the helicopters come back and bury him in the rubble?
> I noticed that too, but I believe they said it was all CGI, every frame, so
> they did a good job of it if it was CGI. Really blended into the scenery.
I think it was as the Hulk was getting into a area with trees in it..
> >They should have ended it when the Hulk changed back to Bruce in San
> >Fran. To me all the David Banner stuff was boring and not needed. More
> >Hulk! Less dad!
>
> Like I mention elsewhere, I think Lee either wanted or was forced to add in a
> big finale.
> I think it could have worked fine though,
> ending it in San Fran, although they would have had to figure out a way to work
> the father into the ending. How? I don't know, but the screenwriters are paid
> big money to figure these things out, so they could have done it with enough
> time.
To me they could have zapped Bruce with the gamma rays and turned him
into the Hulk 15 minutes sooner and left all his Dad stuff outt all
together. Have Bruce and Betty be the ones fighting with her dad over
the burning frog stuff etc.. The whole origin stuff is just not that
interesting to me. I know they have to do it in the first movie, but I
don't think it was done any better than the comics had already done it.
> It wasn't nearly enough to ruin the movie for me, but it was noticeable.
Me neither.. I don't think I'll go see it again like I did X2 and
Reloaded but I will get the DVD when it comes outt.
Outt..
Jeff.
Smak186..
> > There was a far off shot of the Hulk that sorta looked like a guy in a
> > big suit.
>
> That's funny, Hulk didn't look anything like David Byrne to me.
It was a green suit and the Hulk was carrying a lamp around in those
trees.. <g>
Outt..
Jeff.
Derek Janssen
>
> >> Yeah, that's it. Ang Lee -- Ang Lee!! -- made a good movie by sheer
> >> ACCIDENT.
> >
> >No, as mentioned in another post ("'Bloom where you're planted' seems to
> >be the moral here"), it's "Even *he* may have realized he was planted in
> >the wrong place, so he tried to make the best of it and, um,
> >succeeded--But boy, that sure didn't look like the producers' idea
> >starting out..."
> >
> >...So you see, it DOES make sense, in a larger structure.
>
> Not really. Only if you believe that Ang Lee is a one-trick pony who
> stumbled into this job and decided to, oh, just try his hand at it on
> a whim.
Not a "whim", so much as--to quote Stephen King--Paul Sheldon directing
that comic-book movie because CTHD-loving Annie Wilkes was holding the axe...
But while we're attacking me out of hand, let's just dig out our
binoculars and look at the other side for a moment, shan't we?:
If I sounded like a "raving anti-Hulk movie fanboy" at the beginning and
now take heat for altering opinions to suit new enlightenment and
education, may I ask what suddenly turned *your* arguments into those of
a raving no-possible-alternatives "Death before Lee's dishonor" fan-GIRL
from Day One?
Okay, I give up. White flag. You're right about everything--Lee knew
ABSOLUTELY what he was doing when he took the highly paid mainstream
studio project at the very mention. It could not POSSIBLY have been an
accident of studio idiocy.
When little Ang was growing up in Hong Kong, you see, he used to walk by
the manga stores and movie marquee on the way to school and thought,
"Someday...Someday, I'll make it to western Hollywood and bring my
favorite tragic comic-book character to the screen! Bruce Banner's
internal struggle is almost Jane Austen-like, in a way, and reflects the
deep relationships of ancient Chinese novels!"...And thirty years later,
the magic of Universal Studios made that little boy's dream came true!
That's why the executives at Universal knew what they were doing,
too!...Oh, sure, we've had some posters on this board who talk about Lee
as if he was born the day CTHD started principal photography--or who, if
they heard someone else talk about "Ice Storm", said, "Ah, well,
er...That proves it, you see! He can do drama, too!"--but no, that's
too shallow an interpretation to really take...Highly paid studio
executives EARN their salary, because they're so much more educated and
backgrounded in film history and artistic appreciation than we
experienced moviegoers are!
I mean, those execs, they had their choice of any of a hundred
directors, and when they were sitting around that boardroom table, oh, a
few juniors might've bragged about CGI explosions, and iconic marketing,
and getting a few pop-culture snickers out of "You wouldn't like me,
etc."...But then, one wise and creative senior Universal executive stood
up and said, "Y'know?--I think we're taking the wrong angle here! Oh,
sure, it's a summer movie, and it's our flagship for the season, but a
Marvel comic is so much more than just iconic pop-culture
marketing...It's about the SOUL. Now, I know there's not one person
here who didn't see the 'The Ice Storm', and I know I could quote 'Eat
Drink Man Woman' from memory, and people, there is only ONE director who
could bring the Greek-tragedy of Bruce Banner and Betsy Ross to the
screen...Its central story is almost Jane Austen-like, in a way, and
reflects the deep relationships of Chinese novels!"
Of course, at this point, one junior executive was caught up in his
senior's vision and enthusiasm, and exclaimed "Of course!--And did you
see that swordfight in CTHD, when they were spinning up in the
air?...Boy, if we only had a few cool shots like that in THIS movie, to
go with the explosions!" But the senior executive only put his hands on
hips, gave the junior a most disapproving look, and said "Oh,
Roger...REALLY! >: 0 "
In fact, I think it's inspirational the way Universal was there for that
once comic-book loving little boy, to stand by him and give him such support--
Those phone calls between them, when Ang used to call back and say,
"Well, I...guess I could put some visual style in it, if you wanted--You
know how I used to love that Jack Kirby style! But...do you really
think this's the way to go with the project? I mean, I'm used to
independent films, and don't American studios usually like things big
and loud? Maybe if I just put in one cool spinning swordfight, at least
that film made money in the US!" But those Universal executives were
there to say, "Oh, Ang, don't underestimate the moviegoers on our shores
like that! Marvel stories are *about* the soul, and the inner
conflict!--You know, like Captain America's disillusionment at being a
hero out of place! I mean, think back to 'The Wedding Banquet',
man!--It's IN you!"
I'm sorry I ever said any possible quality this movie ever had at the
conceptual, script, or directorial could ever possibly have been random
or discovered at the last minute.
Guess I was just painting with too broad a brush in assuming a
disproportionate number of people in non-indie Hollywood were simply
good-as-your-last-film dopes who didn't look too closely at their talent
before grabbing them as trophy brides--But your fine, sensitive
arguments, taking ALL sides into account with patience and
understanding, have firmly convinced me. Bravo, noble debater. Bravo.
Derek Janssen (<standing ovation>)
dja...@rcn.com
Ronald O. Christian
<dawn...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Have you always been this guy, Derek, and I never noticed before?
>Because honestly, I've been posting here for a couple of years and I
>don't remember you acting like this big a jerk before.
It comes and goes. I think I first noticed it on the Shrek threads.
deering1
Derek Janssen wrote:
>
> When little Ang was growing up in Hong Kong, you see, he used to walk by
> the manga stores and movie marquee on the way to school and thought,
> "Someday...Someday, I'll make it to western Hollywood and bring my
> favorite tragic comic-book character to the screen! Bruce Banner's
> internal struggle is almost Jane Austen-like, in a way, and reflects the
> deep relationships of ancient Chinese novels!"
LOL! All the people swearing up and down Lee did such a great job
here should really check out the NYT Arts and Leisure piece about
his work on the Hulk. He sounds like a nice guy, but I'm derned
if I can see how anyone would think he could understand
simmering, repressed rage--or successfully dramatize someone
dealing with that. And not artificially-imposed rage from an
outside source, either--one that's partly fueled by a nice guy
who's tired of being nice; or someone whose niceness isn't
getting him anywhere; or someone who down deep wants to smash as
much as he wants to build.
> That's why the executives at Universal knew what they were doing,
> too!...Oh, sure, we've had some posters on this board who talk about Lee
> as if he was born the day CTHD started principal photography--or who, if
> they heard someone else talk about "Ice Storm", said, "Ah, well,
> er...That proves it, you see! He can do drama, too!"--but no, that's
> too shallow an interpretation to really take...Highly paid studio
> executives EARN their salary, because they're so much more educated and
> backgrounded in film history and artistic appreciation than we
> experienced moviegoers are!
And they _unfailingly_ have the instincts to pick the right
talent for projects almost every single time out the gate . . .
> Of course, at this point, one junior executive was caught up in his
> senior's vision and enthusiasm, and exclaimed "Of course!--And did you
> see that swordfight in CTHD, when they were spinning up in the
> air?...Boy, if we only had a few cool shots like that in THIS movie, to
> go with the explosions!" But the senior executive only put his hands on
> hips, gave the junior a most disapproving look, and said "Oh,
> Roger...REALLY! >: 0 "
Heheheheheh . . .
> I'm sorry I ever said any possible quality this movie ever had at the
> conceptual, script, or directorial could ever possibly have been random
> or discovered at the last minute.
> Guess I was just painting with too broad a brush in assuming a
> disproportionate number of people in non-indie Hollywood were simply
> good-as-your-last-film dopes who didn't look too closely at their talent
> before grabbing them as trophy brides--
Well, serves your sorry self right. In what universe has _that_
ever happened--g!
C.
**
The Enigmatic One
says...
>> -Talbot. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too one-dimensional. Plus, he also
>seemed a
>> bit tacked on. Like Lee wanted to/got pressured into working some
>conventional
>> popcorn stuff into the movie like the evil industrialist who gets his in
>the
>> end, but he just wasn't incorporated into the movie. More like he was
>grafted
>> on, in between other scenes. I mean, he doesn't really do much. At
>first I
>> thought he was going to be a major character, but really, the movie
>wouldn't
>> have suffered one bit if he was just removed completely.
I'm pretty good on most of your comments, though I may want to see the movie
again to get another look at the ending and another look at the father-son
angle.
However, I must disagree on the necessity of Talbot. One, he's a bully type
that Banner is used to putting up with and, as Hulk, is able to take things
out on. More importantly, however, he is there to be the real bad guy in
terms of experimenting on Hulk allowing General Ross to actually be a
sympathetic character, with motivations that can be understood and possibly
agreed with.
-Tim
DadIsGreatGiveUsTheChocolateCake
>Date: 6/23/2003 1:24 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <5awJa.487242$vU3.2...@news1.central.cox.net>
Interesting take.