Incredible Hulk television series
Will Dockery
Incredible Hulk television series in the Internet Archive, and decided
to post the link and excerpts hereso it can be found in the future...
http://web.archive.org/web/19991012044941/www.freenet.carleton.ca/~av999/Hulkintro.html
(c) 1998 by Mark Rathwell
First Season
''...In order for a show which involved a man changing into a giant
green monster to survive in a competitive television market, Johnson
recognized that the story of the Hulk would have to be adapted
considerably. Johnson wanted the series to appeal to adults as well as
children and made many changes which surprised longtime readers of the
comic. Bruce Banner's name was changed to David Banner because "Bruce"
sounded too stereo typically gay and because Johnson disliked the
alternating name sequences so often used in comic books (Clark Kent,
Lois Lane, Matt Murdock, Peter Parker etc). Also ousted was the notion
of Banner getting exposed to radiation when a missile explodes on a
nuclear testing ground. In its place was a storyline involving Banner
researching the effects of adrenalin on human strength - an interest
which consumes him after he is unable to free his wife from a burning
vehicle. The antagonist of the story was changed too. In the comic
book, Banner and his green-skinned alter-ego were pursued largely by
other Super Beings and the United States army, commanded by a crazy
General. In the television series, the Hulk's main nemesis was a
struggling tabloid reporter bent on convincing the world that a raging
creature was out and about causing havoc, in order to use the story to
revive his stagnating career. Modeled after the character of Javert
from Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", Jack McGee pursued David Banner
and the creature relentlessly throughout the series' run. The Hulk
himself was only seen for a few minutes during each episode while the
rest of the storyline involved Banner working his way through whatever
dilemma faced him, trying desperately to control his transformations.
Unlike the comic character, the television Hulk never spoke and was
somewhat more vulnerable to what his attackers could throw at him...''
Second Season
The second season continued with the familiar formula so popular with
fans (David's two transformations during a one hour episode) but added
a new scope in that it dealt with social issues such as alcoholism,
child abuse, mental retardation, mental illness and depression. The
series also took a new direction with its recurring storyline when
Jack McGee learned that the Hulk actually escapes detection by
transforming back into a human being and disappearing into the
crowd...''
Third Season
''...In the third season, beginning in September 1979, Jack McGee was
more relentless than ever in trying to learn the real identity of
"John Doe", his name for the man who became the creature. David found
it harder and harder to avoid McGee as traveled the country: in
"Behind The Wheel", David had the unpleasant surprise of having Jack
McGee get into the cab he was driving; and in "Equinox", a disguised
Banner found himself cornered by McGee at a masquerade ball. McGee
himself found it harder and harder to stay on the path of the creature
as he faced increasing opposition from his own newspaper which grew
weary of funding the "hunt for a giant green monster." The most
touching episode of the Incredible Hulk's third season was
"Homecoming", which found a lonely Banner revisiting his estranged
father and sister at Thanksgiving. The episode ended with David and
his father mending long broken fences and was topped off with a lonely
Jack McGee being invited to Thanksgiving dinner with Mr. Banner and
his daughter. But perhaps the most notable episode of the third season
was noteworthy not because of it's storyline but because of the sad
circumstances surrounding it. "The Psychic", which aired in February
1980, saw Bixby co-starring with his wife Brenda Bennet. The two
separated later that year and tragedy was to follow when their son
Christopher died in a hospital waiting room. Bennet later committed
suicide...''
--
Truck Stop Woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA4jekz_xk
Guitar/vocals: Henry Conley
Vocal lyricist: Will Dockery
Guest flautist: Gene Woolfolk, Jr.
Live @ Pat's Place Americus, Ga
Bort
>. Bruce Banner's name was changed to David Banner because ... and because Johnson disliked the
> alternating name sequences so often used in comic books (Clark Kent,
> Lois Lane, Matt Murdock, Peter Parker etc).
And this is what pisses me off about people in charge of comics in
another medium. He didn't like alternating names so he decided to
change it? It's been a part of superhero comics since their inception
to use allliteration in names. So just because one guy in charge
"doesn't like it", he feels important enough to change it? If you
don't like how comics do things, then DON'T DO A COMIC ADAPTATION.
Thankfully the comic movies of late have actually stayed pretty true
to character and details, but things like the above just get on my
nerves.
Will Dockery
And /then/ Johnson hired the actor to play his renamed David Banner...
Bill Bixby. Stan Lee stated at least once that the reason Johnson
changed the name from Bruce was actually because he thought ''Bruce''
sounded ''gay''... never mind that Bruce Springsteen and Bruce Lee
smahed that concept better than the Hulk could have.
Even more annoying is the changes in the origin, which seems like a
perfectly good origin, and scrapping the characters of Thunderbolt
Ross, Betty Ross and Rick Jones, which obviously work well, as the two
Hulk films of this decade prove.
--
''God's Toybox'' by Dockery-Beck
http://www.myspace.com/shadowvilleallstars
Will Dockery
> The Hulk TV series refrained from using other superbeings because of a
> creative decision? Oh, yeah, as if producers of it and the 1950s
> Superman series had a choice.
>
> Superman in the 1950s and the Hulk in the 1970s abstained from the use
> of additional supers because their freaking budgets were limited. The
> blurred background of Superman in flight always showed the same
> buildings and sky in every episode. The exact same shirt ripped down
> Banner's back every time too. If the production crews could not manage
> new scenes of the series mainstay, how the heck can they be expected to
> provide super guest stars of the week?
>
> The best Hulk I recall was a two parter when Banner goes where local
> lore says a green monster once terrorized the vicinity. Banner learns a
> dead doctor had experimented with gamma radiation and he speaks to an
> old man who had once been transforming into a hulkoid. All that was
> needed was another muscle man and some green dye for that guy's skin and
> green wig and forehead/eyebrows.
>
> The advent of CGI and its cheapness has certainly helped fantasy/SF TV.
> Two or three supers can be managed every episode.
Well, sure, but there does seem to be an aversion to comics, and the
Hulk storyline specifically, from the series ''creator'' Kenneth
Johnson. He mentions in the commentary on the DVD butting heads with
Stan Lee, who we know is the real ''creator'' of the Hulk, with Jack
Kirby, over the non-use of fantastic or supernatural elements on the
show. There was a scene where the Hulk was to wrestle a man in a bear
suit, Stan said ''You should make it a robot bear...'' and Johnson
said something like, ''No, the audience will only allow one /buy/ in
an episode... they'll buy the idea that Bixby turns into Ferigno, but
not /another/ fantastic element...''.
From what I've seen/heard from Johnson, and from the fact that he
pretty well completely changed the origin and supporting cast, he was
determined to make the Hulk /his/ creation... as the ''Created by
Kenneth Johnson'' byline shows, and the lack of credit to Stan Lee/
Jack Kirby, only a ''Based on the Marvel Comics character'' line.
Johnson really seems to have wanted a ''realistic'', ''adult''
oriented storyline... a Fugitive kind of thing, which he really copped
from the comic, mostly, anyhow.
http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/The_Incredible_Hulk_%28TV_series%29
''...In early 1977, Frank Price, head of Universal Television, offered
producer and writer Kenneth Johnson a deal to develop a TV show based
on any of several characters they had licensed from the Marvel Comics
library. Johnson turned down the offer at first, but then, while
reading the Victor Hugo novel, Les Misérables, he became inspired and
began working to develop the Hulk comic into a TV show. Johnson saw
fit to change the name of the Hulk's comic book alter ego, Dr.
(Robert) Bruce Banner, to "Dr. David Banner" for the t.v. series. This
change was made, according to Johnson, because he did not want the
series to be perceived as a comic book series, so he wanted to change
what he felt was a staple of comic books, and Stan Lee's comics in
particular, that major characters frequently had alliterative names
[...] Johnson also omitted the comic book's supporting characters from
his TV adaptation. Instead, he opted for a variety of more realistic,
'regular person' characters -- most of whom changed with each episode.
Additionally, Johnson changed the character's origin story. Rather
than being exposed to gamma rays while saving someone who had wondered
on-grounds during a botched atomic testing explosion, "David" Banner
was gamma-irradiated in a laboratory mishap. Yet another significant
change was altering Banner's occupation, from nuclear physicist (in
the comics) to medical researcher/physician. Although the comic-book
Hulk's degree of speaking ability has varied over the years, the
television Hulk did not speak at all -- he merely growled and roared
repeatedly. Finally, despite its Marvel Comics roots, fantasy and
science fiction themes were minimized in the series. In the majority
of episodes, the only supernatural element was the Hulk himself...''
So, sure, the budget kept things pretty minimal on the Hulk series,
but there really seems to be a concious choice to stay as far away
from the source material as possible anyway.
EB
> On Jul 20, 2:58 am, Bort wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 2:21 am, Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > >. Bruce Banner's name was changed to David Banner because ... and because Johnson disliked the
> > > alternating name sequences so often used in comic books (Clark Kent,
> > > Lois Lane, Matt Murdock, Peter Parker etc).
>
> > And this is what pisses me off about people in charge of comics in
> > another medium. He didn't like alternating names so he decided to
> > change it? It's been a part of superhero comics since their inception
> > to use allliteration in names. So just because one guy in charge
> > "doesn't like it", he feels important enough to change it? If you
> > don't like how comics do things, then DON'T DO A COMIC ADAPTATION.
>
> > Thankfully the comic movies of late have actually stayed pretty true
> > to character and details, but things like the above just get on my
> > nerves.
>
> And /then/ Johnson hired the actor to play his renamed David Banner...
> Bill Bixby. Stan Lee stated at least once that the reason Johnson
> changed the name from Bruce was actually because he thought ''Bruce''
> sounded ''gay''... never mind that Bruce Springsteen and Bruce Lee
> smahed that concept better than the Hulk could have.
>
who was also very prominent on TV shows at the time.
I remember the MAD comic parody of the Hulk TV show saying something
to the effect of using David instead of Bruce because Bruce sounded
gay and in the background you see Bruce Jenner on tv winning the gold
medal and the annoucer saying Bruce is the most athletic man in
America.
EB
Will Dockery
I've been going through the Incredible Hulk episodes thanks to the DVD
collections, and while the constantly changing locale/jobs of David
Banner are much less unrealistic than the continuity of Stan Lee's
Hulk, the third season episode ''Homecoming'' is a blast, introducing
Banner's sister Helen, his father and a similar but much more
understated and ''realistic'' version of Banner/Hulk's rage over his
childhood... and he still holds his father responsible for the death
of his mother.
As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be
the first exploration of Banner's past, although in the ''alternate
universe'' of Marvel-television, or from what I've been reading, the
Hulk of Marvel UK, which apparently used this version in stories
written by the likes of Alan Moore... now, /those/ would sure be
interesting to have a look at...
Will Dockery
While the Moore Hulk material will no doubt be in limbo for at least
years to come, there seems to be a hefty bit of Marvel UK material
based more on the Bixby-Ferigno/Kenneth Johnson Hulk...
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Hulk-Comic
Like many titles published by the company under Dez Skinn, Hulk Comic
featured new material produced by British creators such as Steve
Dillon, David Lloyd and Steve Parkhouse—along with a smattering of
American reprints drawn from the Lee/Kirby Marvel back-catalogue.
[...]
The title included new Hulk material drawn by Dave Gibbons and Steve
Dillon. This material was significant in that it portrayed the
illiterate, wandering Hulk of the 1970s television series. Issue 15 to
20 included Hulk being trapped on an island with Dr Scarabeus - the
first mainstream comic work for writer Alan Moore (with penciller Paul
Neary and inker David Lloyd)[2][3] Once the title began featuring
American reprints, it chose to display the Marvel Universe Hulk as
depicted by Sal Buscema. Dave Gibbons (born April 14, 1949) is a
British writer and artist of comics. ... Steve Dillon is a British
comic book artist. ... Literacy is the ability to use text to
communicate across space and time. ... This article is about the live
action series. ... For other persons named Alan Moore, see Alan Moore
(disambiguation). ... Paul Neary is a British comic book artist,
writer and editor. ... Cover art for the collected edition of V for
Vendetta by David Lloyd David Lloyd (born 1950) is a British comics
artist best known as the illustrator of the graphic novel V for
Vendetta, written by Alan Moore. ... This article is about the shared
universe setting used by many Marvel Comics titles. ... Incredible
Hulk, The Hulk and The Incredible Hulk redirect here. ... Cover to
Avengers Annual #17. ...
http://www.comicbookdb.com/issue.php?ID=92512
http://www.comicbookdb.com/graphics/comic_graphics/1/185/92512_20070504173329_large.jpg
"The Incredible Hulk" -
Writer(s):
Steve Moore
Penciller(s):
Dave Gibbons
Inker(s):
Dave Gibbons
Characters: Add/remove characters to this story
Hulk (from 1970's TV show)
Synopsis:
After being struck by lightning in the small town of Arbory, Hulk
touches random metal objects through town, instinctively finding a way
to discharge the electricity from his body. In the process he re-
illuminates a darkened street, serving up two petty criminals to the
oncoming police. After firing their guns at the police, the crooks try
to escape by car. Hulk stands in the way of their oncoming car, and
the impact kills them. However, the car acts as a lightning rod for
Hulk's over-electified body. When the cops make it to the scene, they
find the two dead crooks and a car that looks smashed, but—having
never actually seen Hulk at all—they surmise that the car must've been
struck by lightning. His biochemistry returning to normal levels, Hulk
stumbles away from his mindless—albeit helpful—rampage, to transform
back into Dr. Bruce Banner.
Notes:
Banner never appears in this strip, and Hulk himself is obviously not
literate.
Though an American setting is convincingly displayed here, British
spellings of words bely that this is an original Marvel UK story.
OM
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Modeled after the character of Javert
>from Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", Jack McGee pursued David Banner
>and the creature relentlessly throughout the series' run.
...The whole adaptation was more of a knock-off of "The Fugitive" than
of "Les Miserables", when you get down to it. Same general logic: guy
on the run, comes across someone in deep shit, finds that it's safer
for all if he resolves the problem rather than getting the cops
involved, ends up hightailing it out of town just as his pursuer
catches up with him. Shake, stir and repeat next week.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Will Dockery
> Kate Halleron wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> > > Bill Steele wrote:
> > > >Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > >>Modeled after the character of Javert
> > > >>from Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", Jack McGee pursued David Banner
> > > >>and the creature relentlessly throughout the series' run.
>
> > > Oh, come on. It's completely different. "The Fugitive" was accused of
> > > killing his wife, whereas the Creature is accused of killing, well, himself.
>
> > > How can you think they ripped off the idea?
>
> > Kenneth Johnson, the producer and creator of the Hulk TV series, has
> > never hidden the fact that his Hulk storylines owe a great deal to
> > "The Fugitive."
>
> > That both shows were influenced by "Les Miserables" is a more
> > overlooked point, one that KJ has often referred to.
>
> > Might as well steal from the best.
>
> > Kate
>
> People are always confusing plot with premise. Doesn't matter who he
> killed, or even if somebody got killed (although I assume that comment
> was sarcastic). The premise is just "Character moves from place to place
> seeking something, being pursued by something else."
>
> Among others:
>
> The Fugitive
> Hulk
> Werewolf
> Kung Fu
> Starman
> Supernatural
>
> The prototype might be The Odyssey, although nothing was really chasing
> him.
Besides, the theme of Banner being pursued went back to the actual
comic book, with Thunderbolt Ross on his trail issue after issue.
--
Truck Stop Woman by Dockery and Conley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA4jekz_xk
Joe
And him solving someone's problem at the end of each storyline plus
making the villians life miserable. repeated often? of course but hey
we liked the comic and the TV series
Raymond Speer
In Re: The _Hulk_ TV series as a rip off of the _Fugitive_.
Richard Kimball, the fugitive, had motivation to run. If he got caught,
he sits in Old Sparky.
So why is David Banner on the run?
The worst accusation against him if he gets caught is that he was
careless, maybe even reckless with laboratory equipment and blew up a
building and a gazillion dollars of technology. Maybe he bottoms out
teaching at a Community College, but such a setback is not going to be
as oppressive as the life that he chooses to lead as a day laborer.
A David Banner living under his own name in a settled location is going
to find experiments on his health easier to do. Also, if he keeps to
himself and studies his gamma poisoning intensely, he will not be a
knight errant messing in the affairs of others. He is likely to have
less stress, which means fewer transformations to the Hulk, which Banner
defines as a better life.
Actually, there are advantages to being a Hulk when you get angry. You
can kick out at a-holes and never be charged with the consequences.
"Dr. Banner, you have heard that your supervisor was beaten to death by
a bodybuilder who painted himself green?"
"Yes, officer. I always suspected that the victim was not straight
sexually and I bet he did weird stuff like paint his lovers green. I
hope the investigation is checking out that angle."
Anim8rFSK
ray...@webtv.net (Raymond Speer) wrote:
There was some conceit that if the investigative reporter found out
Banner was alive, he'd know he was the Hulk. I was never sure *why*
that was so, but it seemed to be assumed.
--
Star Trek 09:
No Shat, No Show.
Will Dockery
>Will Dockery wrote:
>>Bill Steele wrote:
> >>Kate Halleron wrote:
>>>>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>>Will Dockery wrote:
>
> >> > >>Modeled after the character of Javert
> >> > > >>from Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", Jack McGee pursued David Banner
> >> > > >>and the creature relentlessly throughout the series' run.
> >> > > >Yeah, sure. In no way was the show modeled after The Fugitive.
>
> >> > > Oh, come on. It's completely different. "The Fugitive" was accused of
> >> > > killing his wife, whereas the Creature is accused of killing, well, himself.
>
> >> > > How can you think they ripped off the idea?
>
> >> > Kenneth Johnson, the producer and creator of the Hulk TV series, has
> >> > never hidden the fact that his Hulk storylines owe a great deal to
> >> > "The Fugitive."
>
> >> > That both shows were influenced by "Les Miserables" is a more
> >> > overlooked point, one that KJ has often referred to.
>
> >> > Might as well steal from the best.
>
> >> killed, or even if somebody got killed (although I assume that comment
> >> was sarcastic). The premise is just "Character moves from place to place
> >> seeking something, being pursued by something else."
>
> >> Among others:
>
> >> The Fugitive
> >> Hulk
> >> Werewolf
> >> Kung Fu
> >> Starman
> >> Supernatural
>
> >> The prototype might be The Odyssey, although nothing was really chasing
> >> him.
>
> >Besides, the theme of Banner being pursued went back to the actual
> >comic book, with Thunderbolt Ross on his trail issue after issue.
>
> And him solving someone's problem at the end of each storyline plus
> making the villians life miserable. repeated often? of course but hey
> we liked the comic and the TV series
I was fascinated at the time, being a fan of both the comic and the
Bill Bixby version, imagining the utter confusion someone familiar
with the tv series would have felt on reading their first Marvel
Hulk... about the only thing they had in common was that Hulk was
still green.
Joe
I think most people realize that TV and print media are almost always
vastly different. Whether it is novels or comic books changes are
huge when it comes to TV. Really huge. A lot of the time names are
changed for no good reason. After years of seeing that happen over
and over again I dont think many people would be surprised to see that
TV and comics protray different versions of the same character
T987654321
Anim8rFSK
<8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least until
FRINGE airs.
Michael Black
> In article
> <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>
> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least until
> FRINGE airs.
>
I saw the 2003 Hulk movie a few months ago, having bought it on videotape
at a garage sale for a dollar. I rather liked it, and was surprised
after seeing it that there had been such a fuss.
Of course, the Gold Standard would be the animated one from 1966, nothing
beats what you see as a kid.
Michel
Martin Phipps
> In article
> <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8-850c-62c94b2a3...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>
> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least until
> FRINGE airs.
That's easy: Charlie's Angels, if only because the TV show was so
bad. I actually rather enjoyed the last season: that was when they
jumped the shark and moved the agency to Hawaii so the angels can run
around in swimsuits for the entire episode (instead of inventing a new
excuse for it every week). The confusion would occur at the end of
the episode when they identified the culprit and pulled out their
guns. Where exactly did they keep their guns?
Martin
OM
<will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Modeled after the character of Javert
>from Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables", Jack McGee pursued David Banner
>and the creature relentlessly throughout the series' run.
...The whole adaptation was more of a knock-off of "The Fugitive" than
Anim8rFSK
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
> >
> > Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least until
> > FRINGE airs.
> >
> I saw the 2003 Hulk movie a few months ago, having bought it on videotape
> at a garage sale for a dollar. I rather liked it, and was surprised
> after seeing it that there had been such a fuss.
I sat through all 17 hours of it on USA one night. It was just horrid.
Did that flashback with the green mushroom cloud actually happen?
>
> Of course, the Gold Standard would be the animated one from 1966, nothing
> beats what you see as a kid.
>
> Michel
--
Audie Murphy's Ghost
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.08...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
> > >
> > > Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least until
> > > FRINGE airs.
> > >
> > I saw the 2003 Hulk movie a few months ago, having bought it on videotape
> > at a garage sale for a dollar. I rather liked it, and was surprised
> > after seeing it that there had been such a fuss.
>
> I sat through all 17 hours of it on USA one night. It was just horrid.
>
> Did that flashback with the green mushroom cloud actually happen?
I thought the 2003 film failed at every level. The one this year
wasn't bad, if what you were expecting was a Bruce Banner movie.
Alric Knebel
> In article
> <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>
> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> until FRINGE airs.
That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times since
then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see what people
find so terrible about it. The Hulk himself looked even better than in the
latest film, and I went expecting it to look better because CGI is getting
better all the time. I liked both movies, but I find myself having to
defend the first one again and again. If people could be specific about
what was wrong with it, maybe I could see their point, but most people just
say, "It sucked," then move on.
--
______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Alric Knebel
That's funny. I thought the 2003 film SUCCEEDED on every level, and should
have been a benchmark. It treated the material with respect, and made the
mistake in believing audiences actually might enjoy a STORY. That Ang Lee's
an idiot, huh?
George Peatty
wrote:
>That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times since
>then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see what people
>find so terrible about it. The Hulk himself looked even better than in the
>latest film, and I went expecting it to look better because CGI is getting
>better all the time. I liked both movies, but I find myself having to
>defend the first one again and again. If people could be specific about
>what was wrong with it, maybe I could see their point, but most people just
>say, "It sucked," then move on.
You want specifics? I can be specific ..
1) The Hulk of the movie was not the Hulk of the comic book. I read those
comics since Hulk #1 hit the stands in the early 60's .. The animation in
the movie looked like the character in the comics, but had none of his heart
..
2) The Hulk of the movie was too cartoonish. We buy this in Who Framed
Roger Rabbit, because the movie internal dynamic establishes that we're
watching a cartoon. The Hulk establishes the opposite dynamic and gives us
a cartoon in its place. Cognitive dissonance up the wazoo ..
3) Who the #$@%& was Nick Nolte's character and what was he doing in that
movie? Besides chewing scenery, I mean. I didn't recognize him from the
comics, and I never understood his place in the Hulk's life .. The whole
last 30 minutes of that movie is a mystery to me ..
4) Sam Elliott is a fine actor, and a believable general, but that general
was not Thunderbolt Ross of the comics. Jennifer Connelly is a fine
actress, but too old for the part of Betty Ross, and not believable as
Betty. Eric Bana was a too wussy, too sensitive Bruce Banner, though, at
least, he was "Bruce" and not "David"
In sum, the movie was miscast. It is not true to its roots. It does not
create a believable character that is true and congruent to the universe in
which that character lives. It tells a garbled, incoherent story about
characters whose relationships to each other are never clearly established,
and who lack the dynamism and energy of their comic book antecedents ..
Anim8rFSK
Anim8rFSK
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article
> > <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
> >
> > Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> > until FRINGE airs.
>
> That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times since
> then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see what people
> find so terrible about it.
Everything?
The Hulk himself looked even better than in the
> latest film, and I went expecting it to look better because CGI is getting
> better all the time.
Well, no, it's really not.
I liked both movies, but I find myself having to
> defend the first one again and again. If people could be specific about
> what was wrong with it, maybe I could see their point, but most people just
> say, "It sucked," then move on.
How about the terrible motion capture on The Hulk himself, that made it
obvious he was a 5' tall virtual puppet at all times?
Anim8rFSK
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
Yes. He's an incompetent idiot.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<peattyg...@copper.net> wrote:
I would agree with just about all of this. I didn't like Bana as
Banner. (Hey, I just noticed that their names rhyme, sort of.) I
thought the whole father-as-evil-scientist storyline didn't jell, and I
thought Connelly phoned it in. Also, I generally don't care for movie
adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
material.
The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
they came to be, and what they can and will do. The 2008 film at least
tried to do this, and I think it did so pretty well.
Alric Knebel
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:15 -0500, "Alric Knebel"
> <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times
>> since then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see
>> what people find so terrible about it. The Hulk himself looked even
>> better than in the latest film, and I went expecting it to look
>> better because CGI is getting better all the time. I liked both
>> movies, but I find myself having to defend the first one again and
>> again. If people could be specific about what was wrong with it,
>> maybe I could see their point, but most people just say, "It
>> sucked," then move on.
>
> You want specifics? I can be specific ..
>
> 1) The Hulk of the movie was not the Hulk of the comic book. I read
> those comics since Hulk #1 hit the stands in the early 60's .. The
> animation in the movie looked like the character in the comics, but
> had none of his heart ..
If the animation is a problem, then it should be a problem in this new one,
because the animation is worse. Hulk in the new film lookls like plastic,
all shiny, but when he's running through the streets, despite all that
shine, the light on him remains constant. The reflections from the lights
from the street should have created a shimmering effect. I didn't see it.
> 2) The Hulk of the movie was too cartoonish. We buy this in Who
> Framed Roger Rabbit, because the movie internal dynamic establishes
> that we're watching a cartoon. The Hulk establishes the opposite
> dynamic and gives us a cartoon in its place. Cognitive dissonance up
> the wazoo ..
And this NEW Hulk wasn't cartoonish? The fact that you KNOW it's a CGI
creature might be part of your problem. You'll never get past that aspect
because no matter how good it gets, you'll always KNOW.
> 3) Who the #$@%& was Nick Nolte's character and what was he doing in
> that movie? Besides chewing scenery, I mean. I didn't recognize him
> from the comics, and I never understood his place in the Hulk's life
> .. The whole last 30 minutes of that movie is a mystery to me ..
I never read the comics, so that's not a problem with me. When they take
these stories and change them some for the movies, I don't really care.
Changes have to be made sometimes, and sometimes the changes are for the
better. Take Spider-Man for instance. That his web-spinning capability was
more organic than from the nozzel under his costume was an improvement.
That they added depth to the story by having a genetic reason why a
radiation overdose didn't kill him was alright by me.
> 4) Sam Elliott is a fine actor, and a believable general, but that
> general was not Thunderbolt Ross of the comics. Jennifer Connelly is
> a fine actress, but too old for the part of Betty Ross, and not
> believable as Betty. Eric Bana was a too wussy, too sensitive Bruce
> Banner, though, at least, he was "Bruce" and not "David"
First of all, the Thunderbolt Ross of the comic book can not have been
anything more than a comic book general, shouting or whatever, and
considering the limiation of dialogue balloons, probably didn't have as much
of a distinctive personality as you remember. So basically, you're talking
comparing a fully formed human being and comparing him to the vague outline
of your impression. And Eric Bana was no more a wussy than Bill Bixby.
Banner was a scientist in the comic books, too, so he was a broad-stroked
character that you have only the vaguest memory of. Same goes for Betty
Ross. If you were to bring that comic book, as it was, to the screen, it
would be nothing more than a cartoon. These actors and the story gave the
whole thing depth.
> In sum, the movie was miscast. It is not true to its roots. It does
> not create a believable character that is true and congruent to the
> universe in which that character lives. It tells a garbled,
> incoherent story about characters whose relationships to each other
> are never clearly established, and who lack the dynamism and energy
> of their comic book antecedents ..
That's funny, because the relationshisp of the characters were all clearly
established when I saw it. CLEARLY established. And I doubt the
relationships in teh comic books were more complex than that. The only
thing that was changed was the thing with his father, and I was okay with
that. So, again, your list of complaints SOUNDED specific, but they really
weren't. You're gauging it against an impression. It didn't make anyone
look silly or ridiculous. It treated the subject matter seriously and lent
depth to it. What more could you possibly want? The primary complaint I
heard was -- and this is a direct quote from more than one source -- "There
was too much story."
Too much story. That's a direct contradiction to what you said.
Well, they fixed it now, and I liked it, but I really didn't see an
improvement. It was just another Hulk movie. Different than the first, but
not better. Just different.
Alric Knebel
It didn't show contempt. It showed REVERENCE. It merely tried to make it
more adult-like.
> The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
> TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
> observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
> they came to be, and what they can and will do. The 2008 film at
> least tried to do this, and I think it did so pretty well.
How did the characers differ than in the comic books? Not counting the
relationship between Bruce and his father?
Alric Knebel
> In article <2Jidna--RZkqKgzV...@giganews.com>,
> "Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>>>
>>> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
>>> until FRINGE airs.
>>
>> That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times
>> since then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see
>> what people find so terrible about it.
>
> Everything?
>
> The Hulk himself looked even better than in the
>> latest film, and I went expecting it to look better because CGI is
>> getting better all the time.
>
> Well, no, it's really not.
I know you're an animator, so you think you can get away with a broad swipe
like that. But it is getting better. Or the people using it are getting
more visionary. Something is definitely changing, and it's changing for the
better. Maybe are getting more specific about what they want to bring to
the screen. I don't know what it is, but something is definitely better. I
saw KING KONG the other day on TNT in HD, and I was floored by it all over
again. They've come a good distance since JURASSIC PARK. I know that King
Kong himself is hairy, so some of the flaws are hidden, and the dinosaurs
don't have smooth skin, so there's that. But the Hulk in this last movie
didn't look better than the Hulk in the first one, and in spots he looked
worse. His striations looked stiff and he looked like a plastic figure.
I'm forgiving in this sort of thing, so I liked the movie anyway, but my
point is, the CGI should have been better.
> I liked both movies, but I find myself having to
>> defend the first one again and again. If people could be specific
>> about what was wrong with it, maybe I could see their point, but
>> most people just say, "It sucked," then move on.
>
> How about the terrible motion capture on The Hulk himself, that made
> it obvious he was a 5' tall virtual puppet at all times?
I thought the motion capture was great. I still remember the scene in which
he swung the tank cannon into the tank. It looked pretty good to me.
Alric Knebel
Okay. If you can say that in public without embarrassment, I guess you
simply can't be embarrassed.
Obveeus
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Too much story. That's a direct contradiction to what you said.
Contradiction? It seems to me that 'too much story' is the same complaint
as 'it did not follow the comic book story'. The earlier Hulk movie made
people think and the comic book superhero genre crowd apparently does not
want to engage in a 'thought provoking' movie. They want dark. They want
screaming/growling 'dialog'. They want cool toys. They don't want
contemplation on any level beyond showing their superhero sit on a rooftop
looking like he is contemplating something.
Alric Knebel
What you said is probably true. But they can have both and be happy, if
they wanted to. When I said they put more story, my belief is you can add
more story while using the comic book origination story a very basic
structure. That's sure as hell what Christopher Nolan did in BATMAN BEGINS.
You know, the longer these characters hang around in comic books, the more
times their origin stories are retold, in the comic books themselves. I
mean, look at Superman. Originally, he was the only person to survive his
planet's explosion. Then later it's Supergirl and then Superdog. Batman
took on a Robin later on. I hope they never go that route in the movies.
Bill Steele
> 3) Who the #$@%& was Nick Nolte's character and what was he doing in that
> movie? Besides chewing scenery, I mean. I didn't recognize him from the
> comics, and I never understood his place in the Hulk's life .. The whole
> last 30 minutes of that movie is a mystery to me ..
Since his name was David, I think the idea was that he just *might* have
been the guy from the TV show, tying it all into one universe.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Audie Murphy's Ghost wrote:
> > I would agree with just about all of this. I didn't like Bana as
> > Banner. (Hey, I just noticed that their names rhyme, sort of.) I
> > thought the whole father-as-evil-scientist storyline didn't jell, and
> > I thought Connelly phoned it in. Also, I generally don't care for
> > movie adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
> > material.
>
> It didn't show contempt. It showed REVERENCE. It merely tried to make it
> more adult-like.
I think that's a worthy ambition, but I also think they failed there,
IMHO.
> > The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
> > TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
> > observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
> > they came to be, and what they can and will do. The 2008 film at
> > least tried to do this, and I think it did so pretty well.
>
> How did the characers differ than in the comic books? Not counting the
> relationship between Bruce and his father?
Except for that, which dominated the film? Banner's father, AFAIK,
never played any sort of role at any time during more than forty years
of comic book stories. However, he is central to the film, and it
annoyed me. I don't know why the Hulk needed his origin reinvented.
The other characters? They really didn't matter much.
I didn't detect any reverence in the 2003 film, but that's a matter of
opinion. There was a great big dollop of it in the 2008 film, though.
Alric Knebel
> noble endeavor. A very young movie enthusiast at work mentioned HULK
> a couple of days ago, which permitted me to launch again into a
> strong defense. He liked it, too. I said, "Hold the course. One
> day, WE WELL BE VALIDATED. I'm sure of it." I felt like the captain
> on the prow of a ship, bolding sailing to the new land.
"Bill Steele" <ws...@cornell.edu> wrote in message
Alric Knebel
The origin didn't really matter. That they changed WHY radiation caused the
reaction in him it did doesn't really matter. What Lee tried to do was give
it some more believability. The other characters -- which you complained
about in your previous post -- were all the same. The only thing that
changed was the fact that Bruce Banner was more resistant to radiation,
thanks to previous experiments of his dad.
> I didn't detect any reverence in the 2003 film, but that's a matter of
> opinion. There was a great big dollop of it in the 2008 film, though.
It most certainly is a matter of opinion. The reverence was clearly there
in the detail Lee provided to the story, and that he provided something that
showed respect for adult sensibilities. And for laughs he included a
reference to the famous line from the TV series, in a foreign language,
which this last film filched in a way. To say there's no reverence there
is sissy fanboy hogwash.
Joe
I didnt like the graphic hulk. Didnt like the dog thing. Didnt like
the poor man's absorbing man. Didnt like the total departure from the
comic book orgin. It was ok thought. The action was too bad. The
ending was quite interesting. OVERall I wouldnt say it succeeded. Fell
asleep in the theater. Had to wait for the DVD to see the complete
story.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
As I said, and you agreed, it's a matter of opinion. It's also a
matter of how you define "reverence." As for the rest, I'm likely as
capable of committing sissy fanboy hogwash as you are of committing
complete utter bullshit. I don't think the 2003 film works, however
hard you think they tried, and I'm glad they didn't try doing that
again.
Alric Knebel
LOL! Point taken.
But what YOU said was more bullshit than what I said. I will defend that
movie everytime someone submits a negative comment on it. Those of us who
liked it now have a motto: "WE WILL BE VALIDATED" (eventually).
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
wrote:
> I thought the motion capture was great. I still remember the scene in
> which he swung the tank cannon into the tank. It looked pretty good
> to me.
Actually, that scene is the #1 thing I mention whenever the topic comes
up of "Botched special effects that take you out of the movie." When I
saw that scene, any attempt at realism by the moviemakers vanished,
because the animators weren't paying attention.
If you remember, the Hulk rolls a tank over onto its turret, and then
grabs the cannon, swings the tank around over his head, and hurls it
miles and miles away.
The problem is that a tank of that size weighs about 70 tons. Thus,
the center of mass of the Hulk-tank system is inside the tank: it is
not possible, no matter how strong one is, to swing something heavier
than yourself in circles -- its greater mass would pull you along after
it once you got it moving.
The alternative is to propose that the Hulk weighs far more than the
tank; given how little he sways during the maneuver, somewhere in the
range of 140 tons. But if the Hulk weighs 140 tons, there's no way the
fighter jet would be able to lift him (as we see), and he wouldn't be
able to walk on the roof of a building (as we see), or inside the
hallways of multi-story buildings (as we see). Regular sidewalks and
paved roads wouldn't be able to hold him without cracking or
deforming. 140 tons on the small surface area of his footprint would
crush nearly any standard surface, and easily puncture the floors of
any normal building.
There's just no way the Hulk has enough mass to swing a tank over his
head by spinning on his heel as was shown in the movie. The scene was
ridiculously cartoonish.
The first time I saw the movie, that scene just yanked me out of the
film; it became clear that I was watching animation done by people who
don't know very much about physics and couldn't be bothered to learn.
It was as if the had a scene where the tank was chasing him and jumped
over the Grand Canyon a la "The General Lee". (I may have audibly
snorted my contempt, but I don't remember.)
So, if you are listing THAT scene as a reason to LIKE the movie, I'm
gonna guess that we won't have lots of common ground.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"On the infrequent occasions when I have been called upon in a formal
place to play the bongo drums, the introducer never seems to find it
necessary to mention that I also do theoretical physics."
-- Richard P. Feynman
Martin Phipps
wrote:
> In article <D8qdnS1ozqEhYwzVnZ2dnUVZ_v3in...@giganews.com>, Alric
>
> Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> > Audie Murphy's Ghost wrote:
> > > I would agree with just about all of this. I didn't like Bana as
> > > Banner. (Hey, I just noticed that their names rhyme, sort of.) I
> > > thought the whole father-as-evil-scientist storyline didn't jell, and
> > > I thought Connelly phoned it in. Also, I generally don't care for
> > > movie adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
> > > material.
>
> > It didn't show contempt. It showed REVERENCE. It merely tried to make it
> > more adult-like.
>
> I think that's a worthy ambition, but I also think they failed there,
> IMHO.
>
> > > The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
> > > TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
> > > observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
> > > they came to be, and what they can and will do. The 2008 film at
> > > least tried to do this, and I think it did so pretty well.
>
> > How did the characers differ than in the comic books? Not counting the
> > relationship between Bruce and his father?
>
> Except for that, which dominated the film? Banner's father, AFAIK,
> never played any sort of role at any time during more than forty years
> of comic book stories.
Actually, that's not true: the idea that Bruce Banner had an abusive
father and that this was the source of teh Hulk's rage was introduced
in the comics by Peter David. This obviously became the basis for teh
screenplay. Peter David was then tapped to write the novelization.
(Nobody ever reads the novelizations: it's just a way for the original
writer of the story from the comics to get some money.)
Martin
Martin Phipps
> It most certainly is a matter of opinion. The reverence was clearly there
> in the detail Lee provided to the story, and that he provided something that
> showed respect for adult sensibilities. And for laughs he included a
> reference to the famous line from the TV series, in a foreign language,
> which this last film filched in a way. To say there's no reverence there
> is sissy fanboy hogwash.
I think there was a bit too much reverence. Fanboys want "HULK
SMASH!" They don't want a big green monster looking at moss in the
desert.
Martin
Derek Janssen
>>
>>Except for that, which dominated the film? Banner's father, AFAIK,
>>never played any sort of role at any time during more than forty years
>>of comic book stories.
>
> Actually, that's not true: the idea that Bruce Banner had an abusive
> father and that this was the source of teh Hulk's rage was introduced
> in the comics by Peter David. This obviously became the basis for teh
> screenplay. Peter David was then tapped to write the novelization.
> (Nobody ever reads the novelizations: it's just a way for the original
> writer of the story from the comics to get some money.)
The "Hulk = Abuse-survivor allegory" was a complete invention of the
screenplay, as a way of overcompensatingly trying to justify a "less
complicated" Marvel hero (and making us forget about Bill Bixby) by
trying to play up the "Marvel is DEEP!" card and out-Social-Allegorizing
the X-Men...Suffice to say, it didn't work.
As for how it ended up in the comics ahead of time, Marvel's been trying
to synergize its movie and comic canons lately, and trying to make sure
both hands know what the other is doing--
For those who notice that the X-Men's X-plane now resembles the stealth
bomber of the movie, and that Iron Man's print Tony Stark now has a
distinctly Robert Downey-ish appearance...
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Martin Phipps
I know what you mean. I saw a movie called "Superman" once. It had a
man who could fly. Really. It was so cartoonish.
Martin
Derek Janssen
When Nick Nolte turns into the Absorbing Man at the end, I remember
sensing this unspoken explosive burst of survivor hope in the audience,
of "AwwRIGHT!...Finally, a Marvel VILLAIN!"
It was a short-lived dream, but an oasis to keep us going. -_-
As for "action", they hoped all that stuff of battling helicopters in
the desert would tide us over, since the CGI, was, like, so *real!*
Problem is, after about a half hour of it, we started getting the same
"Okay, we freakin' GET it already, he's indestructible!" frustrations
that anime fans get from "Dragon Ball Z":
"Oh, look, he survived that missle...Oh, look, he survived another
one...Uh-oh, they toppled an entire mountain on top of him; well, that's
it, he's a goner for sure this time--Oops, no, lookit that... 9_9 "
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Audie Murphy's Ghost
Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
With all respect to you, I wish you well with your campaign.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<4c1c5773-5485-40f0...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks for the correction, which is an important one. I put it as
AFAIK, and by the time Peter David was writing Hulk, I was long out of
there.
Raymond Speer
My objection to Ang Lee's Hulk was that it was written in a manner
appropriate for a nineteen fifties monster movie. Way back in those
ancient days, monster movies did not have much more than superimposition
of background scenes behind a close shot of a puppet or a man in a
monster suit. The beast was so lame that canny producers limited the
scenes featuring the thing to less than ten minutes of a seventy to
ninety minute film.
In that genre of picture, the payoff is the monster, and IT is rationed
to the audience so sparingly that one sugar cube sweetens a gallon of
tea. The typical filler to the movie is "slice of life" distractions.
Squabbling business partners, star crossed lovers, teens proving
themselves to dim adults, stalwart sheriff getting worried about far
from ordinary troubles: WHERE IS THE FREAKIN' MONSTER scream the kids
at South Parks throughout the world.
No kid ever saw a movie to appreciate parental angst over the
development of children or to explore issues of nature and nurture.
They want to see Banner swell into the Hulk and smash stuff. In the
first HULK movie, it is a half hour wait and the original tussle is with
an uber-Poodle. That is too late and too little for the target
audience.
I can see concealing a good look at the monster until reel seven if your
SFX is a rubber suit. But when your monster is a multi million dollar
computer extravaganza, be a lot more generous in giving the audience
what they came to the theatre to see.
Anim8rFSK
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> Defending the 2003 "Hulk" movie, "Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net>"
> wrote:
>
> > I thought the motion capture was great. I still remember the scene in
> > which he swung the tank cannon into the tank. It looked pretty good
> > to me.
>
> Actually, that scene is the #1 thing I mention whenever the topic comes
> up of "Botched special effects that take you out of the movie." When I
> saw that scene, any attempt at realism by the moviemakers vanished,
> because the animators weren't paying attention.
I resent the use of the word 'animators' here. MoCrap isn't animation,
it's puppetry. And in this case it was puppetry gone bad.
There's a more basic flaw: by mocrapping Ang Lee, and not FIXING the
data, you end up with a character that's obviously about 5' tall. I
didn't know Ang Lee did the mocrap himself when I saw the film, but I
could tell you exactly how tall the mocrap 'artist' was.
What you need to do it capture somebody huge but still fast, like Shaq.
But then you still need to adjust for gravity.
When people let their arms or legs fall, they let gravity do it for
them. You can tell how big the original is by watching them move or
walk. It's part of why Godzilla always looks like a guy in a suit. The
easist fix is to film in slow motion. Unfortunately, that slows upward
movement more than you want.
What you need to do with the Hulk is A) mocrap Shaq and 2) not have the
character become 15 feet tall in the middle of the movie for no damn
reason. If you do that, then you DO need animators, 'cause mocrap ain't
agonna cut it.
Ted Nolan
Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>
>George Peatty wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:15 -0500, "Alric Knebel"
>
>
>> general was not Thunderbolt Ross of the comics. Jennifer Connelly is
>> a fine actress, but too old for the part of Betty Ross, and not
>> believable as Betty. Eric Bana was a too wussy, too sensitive Bruce
>> Banner, though, at least, he was "Bruce" and not "David"
>
>First of all, the Thunderbolt Ross of the comic book can not have been
>anything more than a comic book general, shouting or whatever, and
>considering the limiation of dialogue balloons, probably didn't have as much
>of a distinctive personality as you remember. So basically, you're talking
>comparing a fully formed human being and comparing him to the vague outline
>of your impression. And Eric Bana was no more a wussy than Bill Bixby.
>Banner was a scientist in the comic books, too, so he was a broad-stroked
>character that you have only the vaguest memory of. Same goes for Betty
>Ross. If you were to bring that comic book, as it was, to the screen, it
>would be nothing more than a cartoon. These actors and the story gave the
>whole thing depth.
>
Actually, I would say it's the other way around. Yes in any given issue
of a 32 page comic, you're not going to have that much dialogue, but remember
The Hulk is a series which has been running since the 1960s, while a movie
lasts just two hours. I have only followed the comic off and on, but
I'm guessing that over the last 40 years, there have probably been several
issues with Thunderbolt Ross as the main character, and told from his viewpoint.
Ted
Martin Phipps
> In article <g6tj21$o5...@pcls4.std.com>,
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
> > Defending the 2003 "Hulk" movie, "Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net>"
> > wrote:
>
> > > I thought the motion capture was great. I still remember the scene in
> > > which he swung the tank cannon into the tank. It looked pretty good
> > > to me.
>
> > Actually, that scene is the #1 thing I mention whenever the topic comes
> > up of "Botched special effects that take you out of the movie." When I
> > saw that scene, any attempt at realism by the moviemakers vanished,
> > because the animators weren't paying attention.
>
> I resent the use of the word 'animators' here. MoCrap isn't animation,
> it's puppetry. And in this case it was puppetry gone bad.
>
> There's a more basic flaw: by mocrapping Ang Lee, and not FIXING the
> data, you end up with a character that's obviously about 5' tall. I
> didn't know Ang Lee did the mocrap himself when I saw the film, but I
> could tell you exactly how tall the mocrap 'artist' was.
In the Making of the Hulk documentary, Ang Lee explained that none of
the actors hired to do the motion capture were able to portray the
Hulk's anger to his satisfaction. He did a run with himself doing as
the Hulk and, as the director of the film, he made the choice to go
with his own performance.
Martin
Obveeus
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Batman took on a Robin later on. I hope they never go that route in the
> movies.
Um...were you asleep when they did the Batman & Robin movie? It was one of
the George Clooney Arnold Schwazennager ones.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
I took Alric to mean the current series. Anyway, I agree with him.
Eminence
wrote:
I have read many complaints about how long it takes for the Hulk to
show up in that movie. While I will grant that Batman and the X-Men,
respectively, come out of the gate early, how long is it until Peter
Parker dons his costume in "Spider-Man," and how long does it take for
Kal-El to suit up in 1978's "Superman"? Answer: A WHILE. Yeah, Pete
gets bitten early, we see him displaying his "spider powers", but he
doesn't become *SPIDER-MAN* right away. And Clark lifts a truck, kicks
a football, races a train... but the movie has been creaking along for
a good bit before he ever changes in that revolving door and saves
Lois and the helicopter. Even this year, there was a slow build up to
Tony Stark's escape using the Mk I armor, and an even longer wait
until he puts on the red & gold Mk III suit. So why does the Hulk get
the unfair stopwatch treatment?
Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned
Eminence
<takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> I generally don't care for movie
>adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
>material.
>
>The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
>TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
>observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
>they came to be, and what they can and will do.
Then why are Donner's Superman films considered "classics" and held in
such high regard?
Anim8rFSK
Eminence <grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:50:51 -0400, Audie Murphy's Ghost
> <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > I generally don't care for movie
> >adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
> >material.
> >
> >The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
> >TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
> >observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
> >they came to be, and what they can and will do.
>
> Then why are Donner's Superman films considered "classics" and held in
> such high regard?
Because, unlike the Hulk films or the Lester et al Superman films, the
Donner film (singular) is actually good?
Anim8rFSK
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <2Jidna--RZkqKgzV...@giganews.com>,
> > "Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <8a1e2d17-6e0a-44a8...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
> >>>
> >>> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> >>> until FRINGE airs.
> >>
> >> That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times
> >> since then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see
> >> what people find so terrible about it.
> >
> > Everything?
> >
> > The Hulk himself looked even better than in the
> >> latest film, and I went expecting it to look better because CGI is
> >> getting better all the time.
> >
> > Well, no, it's really not.
>
> I know you're an animator, so you think you can get away with a broad swipe
> like that. But it is getting better. Or the people using it are getting
> more visionary. Something is definitely changing, and it's changing for the
> better. Maybe are getting more specific about what they want to bring to
> the screen. I don't know what it is, but something is definitely better. I
> saw KING KONG the other day on TNT in HD, and I was floored by it all over
> again. They've come a good distance since JURASSIC PARK. I know that King
> Kong himself is hairy, so some of the flaws are hidden, and the dinosaurs
> don't have smooth skin, so there's that. But the Hulk in this last movie
> didn't look better than the Hulk in the first one, and in spots he looked
> worse. His striations looked stiff and he looked like a plastic figure.
> I'm forgiving in this sort of thing, so I liked the movie anyway, but my
> point is, the CGI should have been better.
I agree the Hulk in the new movie looks awful, even in the ads.
On average CGI is NOT getting better. What you *can* do with it might
be, but what you *do* do with it isn't. Look at the stuff on the SciFi
channel. Aztec Rex was laughable; Heatwave had some of the worse CGI
ever produced, far worse that what people were doing 10 years ago.
>
> > I liked both movies, but I find myself having to
> >> defend the first one again and again. If people could be specific
> >> about what was wrong with it, maybe I could see their point, but
> >> most people just say, "It sucked," then move on.
> >
> > How about the terrible motion capture on The Hulk himself, that made
> > it obvious he was a 5' tall virtual puppet at all times?
>
> I thought the motion capture was great. I still remember the scene in which
> he swung the tank cannon into the tank. It looked pretty good to me.
Absolutely awful. Might have worked in a comedy cartoon, but not beyond
that.
Anim8rFSK
Joe <skyki...@comcast.net> wrote:
I had trouble staying awake through it as well. Stupifying would be a
good word.
Eminence
<al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>George Peatty wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:00:15 -0500, "Alric Knebel"
>> <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That first film was a damned good movie. I've seen it several times
>>> since then, and it deserves to be seen at least twice. I can't see
>>> what people find so terrible about it. The Hulk himself looked even
>>> better than in the latest film, and I went expecting it to look
>>> better because CGI is getting better all the time. I liked both
>>> movies, but I find myself having to defend the first one again and
>>> again. If people could be specific about what was wrong with it,
>>> maybe I could see their point, but most people just say, "It
>>> sucked," then move on.
>>
>> You want specifics? I can be specific ..
>>
>> 1) The Hulk of the movie was not the Hulk of the comic book. I read
>> those comics since Hulk #1 hit the stands in the early 60's .. The
>> animation in the movie looked like the character in the comics, but
>> had none of his heart ..
>
>If the animation is a problem, then it should be a problem in this new one,
>because the animation is worse. Hulk in the new film lookls like plastic,
>all shiny, but when he's running through the streets, despite all that
>shine, the light on him remains constant. The reflections from the lights
>from the street should have created a shimmering effect. I didn't see it.
I agree that the 2008 Hulk looked less "real" than the 2003 Hulk. But
he was angry, and, like, he smashed stuff.
>> 2) The Hulk of the movie was too cartoonish. We buy this in Who
>> Framed Roger Rabbit, because the movie internal dynamic establishes
>> that we're watching a cartoon. The Hulk establishes the opposite
>> dynamic and gives us a cartoon in its place. Cognitive dissonance up
>> the wazoo ..
>
>And this NEW Hulk wasn't cartoonish? The fact that you KNOW it's a CGI
>creature might be part of your problem. You'll never get past that aspect
>because no matter how good it gets, you'll always KNOW.
With all due respect to any professional animators participating in
this thread, that's how I feel, too. I mean, I *LOVES* me some
Harryhausen, but at the end of the day, is there any real progression
from "It Came from Beneath the Sea" to "Clash of the Titans"? "Jason
and the Argonauts" isn't ruined for me because of the way Jason
interacts with the skeleton warriors, or because I know that aspect of
the movie is "fake". Same with "Creature from the Black Lagoon", even
though I know that's Ricou Browning in a suit. I don't get "thrown out
of the movie" watching "Gremlins" or "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" or
even 1943's "Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man." But I am constantly
hearing from my friends how "CGI is TERRIBLE", and reading online that
"this movie looked like a video game." Speaking as someone who
remembers Pong, I don't see why the video game thing isn't a
compliment, but whatever.
WHY does CGI get such a bad rap compared to makeup, puppets, cel
animation, rubber costumes, animatronics, and stop-motion animation?
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
I noted that some special effects in the original 2003 "Hulk" movie were
so badly done that they broke my suspension of disbelief.
"Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com>" replied, apparently intending
sarcasm:
> I know what you mean. I saw a movie called "Superman" once. It had a
> man who could fly. Really. It was so cartoonish.
The problem isn't that the Hulk's setup was cartoonish -- of course it
was. The problem is that the filmmakers need to choose a universe in
which to tell their story and then STICK TO IT.
Isaac Asimov (I think) wrote that to do good science fiction, you need
to choose what you are going to change about your universe -- but then
leave everything else exactly the way it is in this universe. People
still have to feel jealousy, there still have to be crooks, fire still
has to have oxygen, spaceships still have to obey Newton's laws of
motion. If your story separates to far from the audience's experience
of everyday realities, you'll lose them.
You tell the audience that what you're going to change for your story,
and that's where you stop. If partway through you start making up lots
of new stuff that's outside the original setup, then you've blown it.
If the next Star Trek movie has some Federation officer whip out a
magic wand and yell "Expelliarmus!" to disarm a Klingon, that would be
justly ridiculed. Saying "The whole thing is a made up fantasy and of
course it's not realistic" would not be any sort of sensible
justification.
Superhero movies ask us to suspend disbelief about how the superhero
gets that way so they can get the movie going. The audience goes along
for the ride, giving the moviemakers what they need to get started. But
if they go on to make the rain fall up, or something equally stupid,
then they will lose the audience.
Superman's origin story lets him play loose with physics way more than
Hulk's does. But even at that, when the Kryptonian criminals threw a
bus at him, its greater mass pushed him backwards.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"Don't look at this too closely." -- Donald P Bellisario, about the
difficulties in "Quantum Leap"
Martin Phipps
> I noted that some special effects in the original 2003 "Hulk" movie were
> so badly done that they broke my suspension of disbelief.
>
> sarcasm:
>
> > I know what you mean. I saw a movie called "Superman" once. It had a
> > man who could fly. Really. It was so cartoonish.
>
> The problem isn't that the Hulk's setup was cartoonish -- of course it
> was. The problem is that the filmmakers need to choose a universe in
> which to tell their story and then STICK TO IT.
And the things that the Hulk can do in the comics are pretty much what
he can do in the comics.
Taking your objection seriously for a moment, note that the Hulk's
mass was not a constant: he grew when he became angrier and shrank
when he was changing back into Banner.
Martin
George Peatty
>WHY does CGI get such a bad rap compared to makeup, puppets, cel
>animation, rubber costumes, animatronics, and stop-motion animation?
I think the short answer is, expectations are higher. I'll pass on whether
those expectations are reasonable or realistic ..
Anim8rFSK
Eminence <grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Good question, and something we argue about a lot.
I think it's the loss of the artistic touch. MoCrappers are
technicians, not artists. The Harryhausen stuff is beautiful to look
at, and makes you smile today, no matter it's technical faults. CGI
goes through multiple levels of unqualified producers, all able to make
changes and making them for no reason other than to 'make it their own'
and it ends up looking like it.
Anim8rFSK
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> If the next Star Trek movie has some Federation officer whip out a
> magic wand and yell "Expelliarmus!" to disarm a Klingon, that would be
> justly ridiculed. Saying "The whole thing is a made up fantasy and of
> course it's not realistic" would not be any sort of sensible
> justification.
Unfortunatly, there are a LOT of people that disagree with you (I'm not
one of them). They feel that if you break one rule, then ALL of them
are forfeit. So if you're on a spaceship, it's fine to have magic
wands, because we don't have spaceships in the first place. Can't tell
you how many times I've had that conversation. And it extends to the
physics of stuff -- There is no Hulk, so center of gravity doesn't
matter. ARGH!
Anim8rFSK
<bb085391-3317-4622...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Phipps <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's worse than that; the comic book Hulk's mass is extradimensional,
and increases or decreases as needed. There is no upper limit to his
strength, or, apparently, his mass.
Will Dockery
> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
Although I'm one of the few it seems who enjoyed both films, I have to
agree... Bill Bixby and Lou Ferigno nailed it for the ages, though
Edward Norton does a great job of approximating the Bixby Banner. One
thing I'd have liked to have seen is having McGee worked in the story.
He'd have worked well alonside Thunderbolt Ross... although Pat
Robinson of the local comix shop sagely predicts there will be no
Hulk3, it would be cool if something like that did happen. I don't
have the correct spelling of his name handy, but Steve Buscemi of
Soprano's fame as Tony's doomed Cousin Tony, would make a superb
McGee, his grimmace is perfect.
Wonder if there's any chance that if there's no sequel for a Major
Motion Picture, one of the networks might think of a television
revival...
Falling from Grace
Her eyes matched the shabby sepia hotel
the waitress told us the cream had a funny smell.
So we opted for black
before the ride back
to the city.
Mallard duck, mandolin, county fair
Ferris wheel wind
blows back her hair.
Falling from grace
it's a long way down there.
Ten years ago, man in a balloon
he went up high
and he fell to his doom.
All the while he was yelling
it wasn't pretty.
Everybody knows you've been cheating
wipe that smile from your face.
Everybody says I've been sober
Don't cry boy, you know what you done.
All I know is that I gotta turn it loose
three weeks now
and I'm headed for the noose.
Falling from grace it's a pity.
They think they're fixing
the world through fear
but they're out there
and I'm still in here.
So it goes by so fast
before the ride back
to the city.
Words - Will Dockery
Music -Riley Yielding & Henry Conley
© 2008
--
Truck Stop Woman by Dockery-Conley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA4jekz_xk
Alric Knebel
Jesus Christ. YES, I know. I'm talking about the RECENT incarnation, the
Nolan reboot.
--
______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
Alric Knebel
Isn't "motion capture" just a method of moving CGI characters? I mean, King
Kong is a CGI character with a man giving him motion. The creators of the
CGI characters that use motion capture are still the same artists who create
CGI characters that aren't animated with motion capture. I'm surprised no
one else has asked this, since you have this same hostility everytime motion
capture is mentioned. The distinction seems arbitrary to me. How is it
that you're drawing this harsh distinction between the two, as if ALL we're
seeing on the screen is motion capture, instead of CGI characters given
movement through motion capture? The people performing motion capture are
usually actors, not at all technicians. All the technicians are doing is
capturing the motion. The character eventually given motion is in fact the
result of artists.
Eminence
wrote:
Singular (my mistake), you're correct; but we shall have to agree to
disagree that it's "good." I do agree that the Lester film is also
bad, however.
Eminence
wrote:
>On average CGI is NOT getting better. What you *can* do with it might
>be, but what you *do* do with it isn't. Look at the stuff on the SciFi
>channel. Aztec Rex was laughable; Heatwave had some of the worse CGI
>ever produced, far worse that what people were doing 10 years ago.
Yeah, but that's SciFi, where most of the "SciFi Original Movies" seem
to have a budget of about $35 ($50 with catering). Didn't "Raptor
Island" use CGI squibs? THAT was a pathetic excuse for a movie.
Answering my own question from a different post, one thing that I
think works against CGI is its ready availability -- seems like any
schnook with a PC overuses it just because it's there (to paraphrase
"Jurassic Park", "Just because you *could*, you never stopped to ask
if you *should*; you stood on the shoulders of giants, and you didn't
have to work for it."). I view CGI as another tool in the filmmaker's
toolbox, and I heartily dislike the "drive nails with a pipewrench"
manner in which it is implemented.
remysun
> WHY does CGI get such a bad rap compared to makeup, puppets, cel
> animation, rubber costumes, animatronics, and stop-motion animation?
Just because you can make it look like anything can happen doesn't
mean you should.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:50:51 -0400, Audie Murphy's Ghost
> <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > I generally don't care for movie
> >adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
> >material.
> >
> >The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
> >TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
> >observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
> >they came to be, and what they can and will do.
>
> Then why are Donner's Superman films considered "classics" and held in
> such high regard?
Donner made a film and a half. I don't know why some people consider
them classics. I don't. I think they're fun, but that's as far as it
goes.
Alric Knebel
Be a little more specific.
Derek Janssen
> remysun wrote:
>
>>On Aug 1, 9:33 am, Eminence <grey.emine...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>WHY does CGI get such a bad rap compared to makeup, puppets, cel
>>>animation, rubber costumes, animatronics, and stop-motion animation?
>>
>>Just because you can make it look like anything can happen doesn't
>>mean you should.
>
> Be a little more specific.
Rent any big-studio sci-fi/fantasy movie made between 1981 and 1989, and
you'll know from where they get their sentimentality:
Even though "Total Recall" is still enshrined as "The Last 'Real'
Big-Set Movie of the 80's", it's often "Neverending Story" that's held
up as the paradigm of "You can have 'bad' effects and *still* make a
better summer-of-80's movie..."
Derek Janssen (think "lazy" is the word most often bandied about with CGI)
eja...@verizon.net
Anim8rFSK
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
Yes. It's a method of puppetry.
I mean, King
> Kong is a CGI character with a man giving him motion.
Yes, and while it was WAY better than the Hulk, they made the same
mistake; they scaled it so Kong looked like a 6' guy surrounded by 6'
T-Rexes and tiny humans.
The creators of the
> CGI characters that use motion capture are still the same artists who create
> CGI characters that aren't animated with motion capture.
No. You're talking about completely different things. There's (next
to) no overlap between Mocrap puppeteers and CGI animators.
I'm surprised no
> one else has asked this, since you have this same hostility everytime motion
> capture is mentioned. The distinction seems arbitrary to me. How is it
> that you're drawing this harsh distinction between the two, as if ALL we're
> seeing on the screen is motion capture, instead of CGI characters given
> movement through motion capture? The people performing motion capture are
> usually actors, not at all technicians.
I wouldn't say 'usually' actors at all. It's probably best when it is
though. And when it's someone well suited for it. Ang Lee was as wrong
as you could be for The Hulk. You don't have a tiny little guy jump
around in a MoCrap suit, and expect the result on screen not to look
like a tiny little guy jumping around.
All the technicians are doing is
> capturing the motion. The character eventually given motion is in fact the
> result of artists.
No. Where in that chain did you see artists?
A good analogy is the difference between traditional cel animation and
puppetry. MoCrap puts a guy in a suit, and the character moves, and
usually moves badly. Some of the people, like the Gollum/Kong actor,
are very good, but more often you get crap like that Starship Troopers
series, where the MoCrap director was also the guy in the suit, so there
was nobody to tell him 'quit flapping your arms like an idiot' and he
did all the (male) parts, and everybody moved the same, and they all
flapped their arms like idiots. And often as not you have a producer
TELLING you to flap your arms like idiots, because he thinks he's
getting more value for his money if there's more motion, even if it
looks like a spastic convention in an earthquake. It's like sticking
your hand in a puppet, and not caring if you've got a good puppeteer, as
long as it moves.
Compare that to cel animators, each doing a different character so each
character has it's own personality, painstakingly working away for
hours, days, months, years, creating art.
Plus MoCrap has serious inherent limitation in doing characters that
don't look just like the actor, because the rig isn't a good fit,
whereas an animator won't hit that problem at all.
Anim8rFSK
Eminence <grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:24:22 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <v43694lvfgb145mj2...@4ax.com>,
> > Eminence <grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 12:50:51 -0400, Audie Murphy's Ghost
> >> <takebac...@2008.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I generally don't care for movie
> >> >adaptations of any genre that show such contempt for the source
> >> >material.
> >> >
> >> >The film didn't have to slavishly follow the comics, or even the Bixby
> >> >TV show, but I think that when you make a movie like this, you have to
> >> >observe certain well-defined limits about who the characters are, how
> >> >they came to be, and what they can and will do.
> >>
> >> Then why are Donner's Superman films considered "classics" and held in
> >> such high regard?
> >
> >
> >Because, unlike the Hulk films or the Lester et al Superman films, the
> >Donner film (singular) is actually good?
>
> Singular (my mistake), you're correct; but we shall have to agree to
> disagree that it's "good." I do agree that the Lester film is also
> bad, however.
Fair enough.
Anim8rFSK
Eminence <grey.e...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
I'd accept the above. And because of what you said, anybody with a PC
can turn out SOMETHING, even if it's not worth doing, you hit the price
problem where anything can get undercut; people routinely do this stuff
FREE for a foot in the door.
remysun
>> mean you should.
On Aug 1, 3:50 pm, "Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Be a little more specific.
This is really something I wanted to cover in
misc.writing.screenplays.moderated where the series of debates might
have an effect on the industry.
Anyway, I saw Under the Tuscan Sun on My Network TV in HDTV. The storm
scene uses some special effects, and it's a kick to see the washer and
dryer get electrocuted. And I got to thinking, that little bit of
effect meant more to me than other movies drenched in special effects.
Why?
Because of the reason for it. It represented the comic fear of the
moment. The storm is scary and yet there's catharsis. Too often,
special effects are about "Look what I can do!!!" instead of "Look at
what I can make you feel."
Instead of special effects, we should be thinking about special
affects. Better movies might get made.
remysun
> (to paraphrase
> "Jurassic Park", "Just because you *could*, you never stopped to ask
> if you *should*; you stood on the shoulders of giants, and you didn't
> have to work for it.").
Damn, you beat me with an answer to your own question by a minute.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
"Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>" replied:
> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> until FRINGE airs.
How about live-action Spider-Man? They made a not-very-good TV show
out of it ~1980, and I'd consider the 2002 movie better than what I
remember of that show.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"I'm not going to say it's the best science fiction movie, ever.
Oh, wait. Yes I am." -- Orson Scott Card, about "Serenity"
George Peatty
>It's worse than that; the comic book Hulk's mass is extradimensional,
>and increases or decreases as needed. There is no upper limit to his
>strength, or, apparently, his mass.
There is an upper limit, and it has been reached at least once. In one of
the DC - Marvel crossovers, the Hulk lost in a fight with Superman.
Martin Phipps
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:43:04 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> >It's worse than that; the comic book Hulk's mass is extradimensional,
> >and increases or decreases as needed. There is no upper limit to his
> >strength, or, apparently, his mass.
>
> There is an upper limit, and it has been reached at least once. In one of
> the DC - Marvel crossovers, the Hulk lost in a fight with Superman.
The madder he gets the stronger he gets so his strength is limited
only by how angry he can get.
Martin
Anim8rFSK
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> "T987654321 <qwrt...@gmail.com>" wrote, of the Hulk franchise:
> > The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>
> "Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>" replied:
> > Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> > until FRINGE airs.
>
> How about live-action Spider-Man? They made a not-very-good TV show
> out of it ~1980, and I'd consider the 2002 movie better than what I
> remember of that show.
It had Joanna Kara Cameron in a bikini, and a guy in a Spider-Man outfit
actually climbing the real Empire State Building. And a great J. Jonah
Jameson. It's WAY better than the first Hulk movie, and way better than
Fringe.
Derek Janssen
>>>Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
>>>until FRINGE airs.
>>
>>How about live-action Spider-Man? They made a not-very-good TV show
>>out of it ~1980, and I'd consider the 2002 movie better than what I
>>remember of that show.
>
>
> It had Joanna Kara Cameron in a bikini, and a guy in a Spider-Man outfit
> actually climbing the real Empire State Building. And a great J. Jonah
> Jameson. It's WAY better than the first Hulk movie, and way better than
> Fringe.
Besides, Fringe already had a mov...oh, wait, that's the X-Files one. ;)
Derek Janssen (oh, quit pretending they're different!)
eja...@verizon.net
Jack Bohn
>In article <ybmdndlfQpO6nQ_V...@giganews.com>,
> "Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>> I thought the motion capture was great. I still remember the scene in which
>> he swung the tank cannon into the tank. It looked pretty good to me.
>
>Absolutely awful. Might have worked in a comedy cartoon, but not beyond
>that.
I'm trying to remember a comedy cartoon where the characters in a
small spaceship grappled the side of a much larger ship, (they
may have used a suction cup (!) on the end of an arm,) then fired
their rockets to move the larger ship. What they did was swing
around the arm connecting them until they bonked into the larger
ship!
--
-Jack
Anim8rFSK
Derek Janssen <eja...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
X-Files was better! Even the ones without Mully and Sculder.
Anim8rFSK
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
"Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>" wrote:
> Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> until FRINGE airs.
I suggested:
> How about live-action Spider-Man? They made a not-very-good TV show
> out of it ~1980, and I'd consider the 2002 movie better than what I
> remember of that show.
"Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>" replied:
> It's WAY better than the first Hulk movie[.]
Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you mean "name any TV series franchise
which went on to make movies where the first movie was better than the
show". So, for example, Star Trek made "The Motion(less) Picture", but
the franchise recovered with the second movie (and then wobbled a bit
after that).
I didn't realise you meant to compare all TV shows specifically to the
2003 Hulk movie. I don't know nearly enough TV to weigh in on that
question.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"If Shirley MacLaine is right, and we do come back, I will be Captain
Kirk." -- Carol Burnett
Anim8rFSK
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>" wrote:
> > Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
> > until FRINGE airs.
>
> I suggested:
> > How about live-action Spider-Man? They made a not-very-good TV show
> > out of it ~1980, and I'd consider the 2002 movie better than what I
> > remember of that show.
>
> "Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>" replied:
> > It's WAY better than the first Hulk movie[.]
>
> Oh, I misunderstood. I thought you mean "name any TV series franchise
> which went on to make movies where the first movie was better than the
> show". So, for example, Star Trek made "The Motion(less) Picture", but
> the franchise recovered with the second movie (and then wobbled a bit
> after that).
>
> I didn't realise you meant to compare all TV shows specifically to the
> 2003 Hulk movie. I don't know nearly enough TV to weigh in on that
> question.
yep. Sorry I was unclear; it is an odd concept. But, yes, I was saying
that the first Hulk movie is so horrible, that only the worst television
show I've ever seen is beneath it: Fringe.
As to Spider-Man; yes, the first movie is better than the TV show.
Second is probably a tie. Third is worse.
Anim8rFSK
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> Superman's origin story lets him play loose with physics way more than
> Hulk's does. But even at that, when the Kryptonian criminals threw a
> bus at him, its greater mass pushed him backwards.
That's one of the things I don't like about Superman 2 -- dumbest fights
in history.
Superman should have stood there and laughed when hit with a bus; the
only reason to let it push you backwards is to cushion the blow for the
people inside. Manhole covers? Who cares?
You want to hurt a Kryptonian? Hit him with something from Krypton!
Like your fist! Zod should have picked up Non and hit Superman over the
head with him 300 or 400 times in 10 seconds.
Heat vision is certainly worth a try. As is a good old fashioned
throttling (I'm not sure breaking Superman's neck would actually bother
him, but hey). But nothing from Earth should faze them.
Eye gouging! Send Ursa after him with her fingernails! *That* should
hurt!
Take off your belt and whap him with the buckle!
Then when it gets in the Fortress, it gets WORSE. Cellophane S logos?
Magic levitation finger beams? What the hell? At least the Donner cut
gets rid of most of that Lester crap.
Captain Infinity
Anim8rFSK wrote:
>(I'm not sure breaking Superman's neck would actually bother
>him, but hey).
Are you kidding? It kept him in a wheelchair for the last nine years of
his life.
**
Captain Infinity
..."What th-?" --Superman
remysun
wrote:
> Are you kidding? It kept him in a wheelchair for the last nine years of
> his life.
As the bartender said, "You can be a real asshole when you're drunk,
Clark."
Martin Phipps
> In article <g6v9b0$1p...@pcls6.std.com>,
> Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
>
> > Superman's origin story lets him play loose with physics way more than
> > Hulk's does. But even at that, when the Kryptonian criminals threw a
> > bus at him, its greater mass pushed him backwards.
>
> That's one of the things I don't like about Superman 2 -- dumbest fights
> in history.
>
> Superman should have stood there and laughed when hit with a bus; the
> only reason to let it push you backwards is to cushion the blow for the
> people inside.
Well, duh. Just before the bus was thrown Ursa said "I know his
weakness. he actually cares for these creatures." and Zon said "Like
pets!" Somebody wasn't paying attention.
Now imagine Superman getting hit by a bus and laughing while the
passengers are crushed inside.
Martin
Will Dockery
>Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > T987654321 wrote:
>
> >> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>
> > FRINGE airs.
>
> at a garage sale for a dollar. I rather liked it, and was surprised
> after seeing it that there had been such a fuss.
Same here, as I wrote earlier... I didn't find it boring, though I can
see how some would who wanted more of the Hulk smashing stuff. There
seemed to be more than enough of that for me.
> Of course, the Gold Standard would be the animated one from 1966, nothing
> beats what you see as a kid.
Overlooking the stiff animation, since it used actual artwork from the
comics... I haven't seen any of them in 40 or so years so I don't know
if it was Kirby, Ditko or who drew them, but I'd love to see a DVD
collection of those.
--
Truck Stop Woman by Dockery and Conley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA4jekz_xk
TBerk
> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
Bullshit.
TBerk
Anim8rFSK
<c12da339-8d09-4c28...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
Will Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ditko didn't exactly draw a lot of HULK.
Will Dockery
>
> <c12da339-8d09-4c28-a46e-666931184...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
> Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Black wrote:
> > >Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > > T987654321 wrote:
>
> > > >> The TV series was much better than either of the films!
>
> > > > Name a TV series that WASN'T better than the first film, at least
until
> > > > FRINGE airs.
>
> > > I saw the 2003 Hulk movie a few months ago, having bought it on
videotape
> > > at a garage sale for a dollar. I rather liked it, and was surprised
> > > after seeing it that there had been such a fuss.
>
> > Same here, as I wrote earlier... I didn't find it boring, though I can
> > see how some would who wanted more of the Hulk smashing stuff. There
> > seemed to be more than enough of that for me.
>
> > > Of course, the Gold Standard would be the animated one from 1966,
nothing
> > > beats what you see as a kid.
>
> > Overlooking the stiff animation, since it used actual artwork from the
> > comics... I haven't seen any of them in 40 or so years so I don't know
> > if it was Kirby, Ditko or who drew them, but I'd love to see a DVD
> > collection of those.
>
> Ditko didn't exactly draw a lot of HULK.
True, but Ditko did draw some of the important early appearances of the
Hulk... the last issue, number six, I think, and then at least a couple of
the first episodes when he retuned for the Tales To Astonish run. Plus a
Spider-Man appearance in between and maybe the Giant-Man guest shot that led
to the TTA run. Speaking of all this, I was flipping through the Essentials
volume that collects all this and am tempted to buy it, but the
black-and-white kind of turns me off... those stories really should keep the
cheap four-color, imo.
Anyway, the Ditko stoires would have been coming out at just about the right
time to have been adapted for the cartoon series... early-mid-sixties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marvel_Superheroes
''...The cartoons were presented as a series of static comic-strip panel
images; generally the only movement involved the lips, when a character
spoke, and the occasional arm or leg. Some animation fans have criticized
the production as shoddy[citation needed] while noting[citation needed] that
the series used the original stories largely in their entirety, showcasing
classic Jack Kirby, Steve Ditko and Don Heck art, among others, from the
period fans and historians call the Silver Age of comic books...''
--
Truck Stop Woman by Dockery-Conley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXA4jekz_xk
Orson Wells as CitizenCain
"Will Dockery" <doc...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:d5356$4895e12d$4b4c71e9$21...@KNOLOGY.NET...
= snip =
Wikipedia, much like you, is a joke of the Internet, Will. Anyone who tries
to quote it or use it as source is a fool.