JIC: HULKING TREPIDATIONS [Archive]

View Full Version : JIC: HULKING TREPIDATIONS

MattBrady

05-24-2003, 09:03 AM

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/Hulkmovie.jpg" width="219" height="350" border="0" hspace="2" align="right">by Mike San Giacomo

As the new X-Men movie continues to rack up more cash than the gross national product of most Third World Nations, Marvel Comics is gearing up for the next big movie, The Hulk.

It’s too soon to say anything about the movie to be released June 20. Really. It is. It would be silly to make predictions now, I hear that they are still messing with final edits.

Then again...I’ve never been one to let much slow me down.

Marvel has released the official adaptation of The Hulk movie (Marvel, $12.99) on slick glossy paper. We all know that adaptations don’t always accurately depict the movie, but they usually get most of it right. Judging from that, I’m a little nervous about the film.

Okay, the story was written based on the very skinny screenplay by James Shamus, which (hopefully) was tossed aside when director Ang Lee got his mojo working. What scares me is that the adaptation was written by Bruce Jones, the current kickass writer of the Hulk comic. If this is the best that even a craftsman like Jones can do with the script, we’re in trouble.

Let me repeat something I say every time I talk about films based on comics: the movie does not have to be lockstep faithful to the comic. As long as it has a solid story that’s internally consistent and that it keeps to the spirit of the comic, I’m happy.

That being said…geez.

There are spoilers galore after this point, so purists may want to quit while they’re ahead.

For the rest of us:

What is this mess?

Bruce Banner is Bruce Krenzler?

Betty Ross is a whining pest?

Bruce’s condition was caused by his dad injecting him with nanobots, or “nanomeds?”

Hulk-dogs?

I repeat, Hulk-dogs?

And did we really need to have Bruce use the “You wouldn’t like me angry” line from the television show TWICE?

All this and I haven’t even touched on the most worrisome part of the movie, the computer generated animation that passes for the Hulk. I will wait until I see it in the movie because I hear it has improved greatly over what was shown in the movie trailers. The brief glimpses of The Hulk seen on a commercial the other day looked much better, so maybe that glitch has been worked out.

Let’s hope so.

Again, the adaptation might not be representative of the finished product.

We live in hope.

Oh, the movie adaptation is a pretty nice package on the whole, and should (could?) appeal to folks who want some more Hulk goodness after they come out of the theater. Cross your fingers. The trade includes a variety of Hulk stories - Hulk #34, “The Return of The Monster” (which to movie audiences is clearly an older Bruce who’s gone through some awful tragedies since they last saw him); The Ultimates #5 featuring the battle with The Hulk (which pits a recognizable Hulk against recognizable Marvel heroes); and Ultimate Marvel Team-Up #3, the “battle” between the Hulk and Spider-Man (hey – the Hulk and Spidey. Is there anyone alive in America today who doesn’t know who either of these guys is?). All told, it’s a nice package that, if you can get them to skip over the adaptation, and swear to your friends that the Hulk comics are not like it, could actually get some more casual fans hooked on the green guy with purple pants.

But hey – I do have an issue.

I guess what bugs me more than anything is that the six-page origin of The Hulk written by Stan Lee and drawn by the late, great Jack Kirby, which is included in the book, was and is darn near perfect. Like Lee and Kirby’s best, it had everything, and still holds as probably one of the perfect examples of comic art. Cold war fear, atomic bomb paranoia, scientific fanaticism, teenage stupidity, heroism, betrayal, transformation, loyalty and hope. It’s all there.

Couple that with the bigger metaphors of the Hulk – man’s primitive, emotional nature rebelling as we move farther and farther away from the jungle and into a controlled environment and existence where reason, not emotion, is king, and that savage nature will seek to come out (and factor in that these guys were under insane pressures to meet deadlines, create something that kids would like, and not lose the company any money), and you start to look at Stan and Jack’s story with more awe than anything else.

Who were these guys channeling? It’s amazing how much they packed into the first six pages and the rest of the book.

I get none of that from the adaptation (which runs a heck of a lot longer than six pages). Bruce is a victim, the Hulk is a beast, Thunderbolt Ross is a fascist, Bruce’s dad is a bastard. Who are the good guys?

Then again, X-Men, Spider-Man, Blade, Daredevil all were pretty great. Hollywood can’t have forgotten all those valuable lessons about making comic movies this fast.

Let’s just write this off to pre-movie release angst.

Hulk editor Axel Alonso said he deliberately avoided reading the script so he wouldn’t be accused of making the comic fit the film.

Fans accused him of it anyway.

“When I took over as editor, Tom Brevoort warned me that Hulk fans are crazy,” he said. “They will complain and complain about the movie - and go see it seven times.”

Michael Sangiacomo is a statewide news reporter for the Plain Dealer newspaper in Cleveland, Ohio. His syndicated "Journey Into Comics" weekly column on the state of the comic book business, can be found in newspapers and at the Newsarama website. His monthly comic book column appears the first Saturday of each month in the Plain Dealer Arts page and is syndicated through Newhouse Newspapers. He also writes a twice-monthly audiobooks review column covering crime thrillers and mysteries that can be seen at <a href="http://www.audiobookstoday.com" target="_blank">www.audiobookstoday.com</a>. He currently is developing Nowhere Man for Marvel’s Epic imprint.

El Argentino

05-24-2003, 10:05 AM

Cool article.
What about Matrix Reloaded numbers?
any news out there?

The Un-cool is the new cool.

BarryWeen

05-24-2003, 11:15 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by El Argentino:
Cool article.
What about Matrix Reloaded numbers?
any news out there?

The Un-cool is the new cool.<hr /></blockquote>It was reported last night on Entertainment Tonight that Matrix Reloaded has grossed over $160 million so far. I don't know if that was up to date (i.e. including Friday's numbers).

Eric Yonge

05-24-2003, 11:25 AM

I think this movie is gonna rock. I also think the effects look better than they did in the SuperBowl commercial, but the real proof will be how it looks on the silver screen. I have no problem with them changing some of the Hulk origin tidbits, just as I had no problem with organic webshooters. If it comes together into a cohesive whole, it'll pay off. The movie version has to be somewhat different than the comic version anyway. I have to say I'm intrigued about the father-son relationship between Nolte and Bana.

The fact everyone is scared about Hulk-dogs makes me absolutely love Hulk-dogs. RUFF! I want a Hulk-dog action figure. I hope they do cross-promotion with Oscar Myer so I can eat a green Hulk-dog. Hey, they've got Hulk-green Hershey's syrup out now.

malshnut

05-24-2003, 11:47 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BarryWeen:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by El Argentino:
Cool article.
What about Matrix Reloaded numbers?
any news out there?

The Un-cool is the new cool.<hr /></blockquote>It was reported last night on Entertainment Tonight that Matrix Reloaded has grossed over $160 million so far. I don't know if that was up to date (i.e. including Friday's numbers).<hr /></blockquote>A site I go to when needing current Box office numbers is <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com" target="_blank">www.boxofficemojo.com</a>

BarryWeen

05-24-2003, 03:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by malshnut:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BarryWeen:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by El Argentino:
Cool article.
What about Matrix Reloaded numbers?
any news out there?

The Un-cool is the new cool.<hr /></blockquote>It was reported last night on Entertainment Tonight that Matrix Reloaded has grossed over $160 million so far. I don't know if that was up to date (i.e. including Friday's numbers).<hr /></blockquote>A site I go to when needing current Box office numbers is <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com" target="_blank">www.boxofficemojo.com</a><hr /></blockquote>Thanks for the link.

So according to the "mojo", Matrix is now at $175 million. And looking at Bruce Almighty, seems people are ready for Carrey to be funny again. :)

Hdefined

05-25-2003, 01:45 AM

If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.

jawaplumber

05-25-2003, 09:30 AM

Not to discredit you, Mike, but I'd like to add to the point that you yourself made about comic book movie adaptations. They rarely reflect the film they are based upon. In fact, the only movie adaptation I've ever thought was decent was Bram Stoker's Dracula by Topps Comics, written by Roy Thomas and drawn by Mike Mignola. Of course, you have Roy Thomas, but the most important element was Mignola, who besides being one of the greatest comic book artists of all time was also one of the storyboard artists for the actual film itself and had spent time on the set while it was being made. Seriously, if anyone hasn't checked it out, you really should search for Topps' Bram Stoker's Dracula.

Getting back to the matter at hand, though, I'd also like to point to the comic book adaptation of Daredevil. It, too, was written by Bruce Jones and the first time I read it, I was like "Dear God, this is going to be a horrendous film". I ended up really liking the movie, though, and found the adaptation to barely resemble what I saw on the big screen. So, I'm not going to allow myself to have the same concerns again.

Bruce Krenzler? I'm not sure I understand this. All the promotional material clearly states that he's Bruce Banner. It's on the website, it's on the action figures, etc.. And the Hulk-dogs...man, I wish people would get the hell over this Hulk-dog thing. It's not like it's gonna be The Blue Falcoln and Dyno-Mutt. From what I understand, it's just one scene with Hulk fighting these gamma-enhanced mutts. In fact, I remember a Hulk comic back in the 80's (the details are sketchy, I admit) where a dog was given gamma ray treatment in order to save it's life. The dog subsequently turned completely green and within days, turned rapid and savage like the Hulk (Doggie Smash!). So, the concept isn't completely radical from anything done in the comics. I'm not saying this gives it validity, but it's worth pointing out, regardless.

Anyways, I have to admit, the trade paperback sounds like a lot of fun. And I was under the impression that Mark Bagley was the artist on the adaptation itself. How did it look?

malshnut

05-25-2003, 12:09 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hdefined:
If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.<hr /></blockquote>god! that statement was so silly, are you actually making some sort of hokey death threat, because someone may have a different opinion than you on a movie?

Conor E

05-25-2003, 01:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by malshnut:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hdefined:
If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.<hr /></blockquote>god! that statement was so silly, are you actually making some sort of hokey death threat, because someone may have a different opinion than you on a movie?<hr /></blockquote>He meant the movie's death warrant. Daredevil is generally considered to be a bad movie. Mike, who actually liked Daredevil, said that Hulk has problems. That means that Hulk could be worse than Daredevil. This brings us back to the the starting point, that Daredevil is generally...

Franklin Harris

05-25-2003, 01:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Conor E:
[QUOTE]Daredevil is generally considered to be a bad movie. Mike, who actually liked Daredevil, said that Hulk has problems. That means that Hulk could be worse than Daredevil. This brings us back to the the starting point, that Daredevil is generally...<hr /></blockquote>Actually, given that he liked Daredevil, which is a soulless shell of a movie, the fact that he worries about Hulk bodes well for Hulk.

JohnnyZemo

05-25-2003, 01:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jawaplumber:
 Bruce Krenzler? I'm not sure I understand this. All the promotional material clearly states that he's Bruce Banner.<hr /></blockquote>He is. Mike, you should read the novelization by Peter David. It explains things a lot better.

Bruce is known as 'Bruce Krenzler' for a time because he is raised by a foster mother. But his real name is still Banner.

malshnut

05-25-2003, 07:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Conor E:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by malshnut:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hdefined:
If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.<hr /></blockquote>god! that statement was so silly, are you actually making some sort of hokey death threat, because someone may have a different opinion than you on a movie?<hr /></blockquote>He meant the movie's death warrant. Daredevil is generally considered to be a bad movie. Mike, who actually liked Daredevil, said that Hulk has problems. That means that Hulk could be worse than Daredevil. This brings us back to the the starting point, that Daredevil is generally...<hr /></blockquote>woops! my bad :p

Gelogurte

05-25-2003, 08:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MattBrady:
Okay, the story was written based on the very skinny screenplay by James Shamus, which (hopefully) was tossed aside when director Ang Lee got his mojo working.<hr /></blockquote>This information is WRONG. The final script is from James Schamus, who is an amazing writer and worked with Ang Lee in pretty much all his films. And he's a devoted comic book fan. Just watch the first minute of The Ice Storm and tell me that Tobey Maguire's voice over isn't genius! Lee tossed the other scripts and Schamus rewrote almost the whole movie. He even got pissed because another two writers were getting in the credits of the movie because the Writer's Association said that Schamus used some of the ideas of the other writers. I trust Schamus almost blindly. He's the guy that got The Pianist distributed in the US so there you have it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MattBrady:
What scares me is that the adaptation was written by Bruce Jones, the current kickass writer of the Hulk comic. If this is the best that even a craftsman like Jones can do with the script, we’re in trouble.<hr /></blockquote>Yeah... right... go read the Daredevil adaptation again and then we'll talk. Although not even Miller, Bendis or Smith could save that piece of crap movie. Jones is good... but not that good. Love his Hulk stories but that's pretty much all the good he does. And they are not even THAT good.

And since when movie adaptations are any good? I've never read a good one! Not even Spider-Man and that's drawn by Alan Davis!

Anyway... have you guys seen the latest trailers? Sure, the Hulk will never look perfect but it looks and sounds like it will be a GREAT movie. I'm totally sold! And any comic book fan should be too!

DocSamson27572

05-25-2003, 08:21 PM

When I see the Hulk on the big screen I'm sure I will be able to tell he's CGI. Purely for the fact he's not real! Plus, I will accept the limitations of the technology and thank god that they didn't go the alternative and have some wrestler run around in green paint screaming and yelling!! I'm tired of hearing criticisms of the CGI!! So it looks a little fake at times - so what! Just be glad they tried at least.

Gelogurte

05-25-2003, 08:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Conor E:
Mike, who actually liked Daredevil, said that Hulk has problems. That means that Hulk could be worse than Daredevil. This brings us back to the the starting point, that Daredevil is generally...<hr /></blockquote>Which means that Mr San Giacomo maybe, just maybe... have poor taste in movies. But you know what they say about taste. :D

mayhem

05-25-2003, 10:21 PM

I knew people would start attacking Mike for saying the Daredevil movie was good. For starters it's not universally considered a bad movie, because some people liked it,just as some didn't. You can't just start attacking Mike for saying he liked it, because there were some parts of it that were prety good and definitley deserving of liking. The fact is, judging from the divided opinions of people who liked and hated it, you'd have to say it's an alright, average movie, not great but not totally bad either.

The ironic thing is people hail Miller's run as being the greatest thing ever, and yet trash the movie as being so bad. And yet the movie was so faihtful to the comic. So why didn't it work? In my opinion, it's almost too faithful, and this is why its bad. It seems the DD mythos just didn't translate to the big screen as well as everyone thought it wood. Maybe it needed to be altered a tad more to make it not so, well, quirky as it was.

NYC71

05-26-2003, 01:58 AM

The Hulk is a merchandizing juggernaut in my opinion. If the movie bombs, it won't be becuase of the CGI Hulk, or Universal will lack promotion for it, it will fail becuase people have seen the movie and find to be unintresting and not worth seeing again and again. And that's what most people are scared of.

NYC71
gundam2771@yahoo.com
animecomicsfan@yahoo.com
dominicanman@yahoo.com

MattFreakinLittle

05-26-2003, 02:08 AM

Ladies and gentlemen, this entire thread is what's called 'getting ahead of ourselves.'

Gelogurte

05-26-2003, 09:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mayhem:
I knew people would start attacking Mike for saying the Daredevil movie was good. For starters it's not universally considered a bad movie, because some people liked it,just as some didn't. You can't just start attacking Mike for saying he liked it, because there were some parts of it that were prety good and definitley deserving of liking. The fact is, judging from the divided opinions of people who liked and hated it, you'd have to say it's an alright, average movie, not great but not totally bad either.<hr /></blockquote>Well, like I said, it's a matter of taste. I know people who likes Batman Forever and even Batman and Robin. I also know people that liked Daredevil and didn't like Spider-Man, Superman or X-Men (both of them!).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mayhem:
The ironic thing is people hail Miller's run as being the greatest thing ever, and yet trash the movie as being so bad. And yet the movie was so faihtful to the comic. So why didn't it work? In my opinion, it's almost too faithful, and this is why its bad. It seems the DD mythos just didn't translate to the big screen as well as everyone thought it wood. Maybe it needed to be altered a tad more to make it not so, well, quirky as it was.<hr /></blockquote>Well, that's not ironic. It's naive. It's not bad because it's faithful, it's bad because Mark Steven Johnson blew it. He just put too much story in it. Nothing gets developed for more than five minutes. Besides, all the action sequences suck big time. I mean, they were cut so fast that you couldn't even see what was going on.

And come on: the DD logo on fire? Kingpin killing Matt's dad (for me that's worse than the Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents)? Matt and Elektra fighting in broad daylight? A fireplace in the sex scene? Kingpin goes to jail? How? Why? And where the hell is Stick? Or Karen Page?

Johnson was so un-original that he got Matt and his dad training on rooftops (Spider-Man anyone?), instead of the gym, like they used to. And that's just the small things. I don't even had a problem with the poor use of CGI or DD doing those Spidey-like leaps.

It's like Johnson read the whole Miller run but just didn't get it. I was watching Changing Lanes again this weekend and I gotta tell you, that scene with Ben Affleck in the church explored Matt Murdock's catholic beliefs better than the whole Daredevil movie.

Why is it so faithful? Because it has Elektra, Bullseye and Kingpin in it? Or because Elektra "dies"? And when you say Miller's run, you're talking about the Elektra story arc. The guy wrote Daredevil for years!

Why not make a origin story with one villain? Why not leave Elektra to a second movie? Why not make Kingpin like the Emperor in Star Wars? Just someone you know that exists, that commands, but you can't really get to him. And then, in the inevitable sequel, you can develop the character a whole lot better. It would even make him a lot scarier. But it's like Johnson got cold feet and decided to tell everything he could in one movie. Or maybe the studio's or the producers' pressure. Who knows?

In my humble opinion, Daredevil it's not faithful to the comic. It just has the same characters.

zeraze

05-26-2003, 10:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NYC71:
The Hulk is a merchandizing juggernaut in my opinion. If the movie bombs, it won't be becuase of the CGI Hulk, or Universal will lack promotion for it, it will fail becuase people have seen the movie and find to be unintresting and not worth seeing again and again. And that's what most people are scared of.

NYC71
gundam2771@yahoo.com
animecomicsfan@yahoo.com
dominicanman@yahoo.com<hr /></blockquote>Yeah, a bad story can scuttle a blockbuster despite stunning CGI. For example, Star Wars: Episode II has picture perfect CGI compared to Spider-Man, whoss title character looked like a bendy toy in a few scenes. However, Spider-Man had a REALLY gripping story, which made you look past any CGi flaws. SO, it's no surprise Spider-Man was a much bigger hit than Episode II, which was brought low by a lifeless story, scrtpt and direction.

So, if the Hulk has great acting, direction and dialogue, it will delight non-fans and fans of the character. If it doesn't, it will be crucified at the box office.

zeraze

Gelogurte

05-26-2003, 11:04 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by zeraze:
So, if the Hulk has great acting, direction and dialogue, it will delight non-fans and fans of the character. If it doesn't, it will be crucified at the box office.

zeraze<hr /></blockquote>I totally agree. And from what I saw so far, I think it's going to be a beautiful movie. The script, the acting, it feels very emotional. Very touching. And that's Ang Lee's territory.

The CGI Hulk doesn't convince me and probably never will. But sure is better than Lou Ferigno. It doesn't have to look "real", it has to look good and serve the story.

And Jennifer Connelly is in my Top 5 All Time Beautiful Women. Did you guys saw the Hulk Origin video at the movie home page? It's great!

KASE

05-26-2003, 12:41 PM

It's been reported that the suits behind this movie absolutely hate it. The words slow, long, and boring were emphasized. Oh well, for me: I thought X-Men was okay, I really enjoyed Spiderman and X2, and didn't care much for Daredevil. I can't say that I care much for the Hulk, either. I wonder how long this "superhero summer blockbuster" is gonna last. It's obviously a phase Hollywood is going through like the natural disaster and alien invasion movies.

Gelogurte

05-26-2003, 03:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KASE:
It's been reported that the suits behind this movie absolutely hate it. The words slow, long, and boring were emphasized. Oh well, for me: I thought X-Men was okay, I really enjoyed Spiderman and X2, and didn't care much for Daredevil. I can't say that I care much for the Hulk, either. I wonder how long this "superhero summer blockbuster" is gonna last. It's obviously a phase Hollywood is going through like the natural disaster and alien invasion movies.<hr /></blockquote>The Universal suits hate it because it's not a "superhero summer blockbuster" as they want it to be. It's not a franchise movie, it's an Ang Lee movie! It's dramatic! It's emotional! Universal thought they were buying "Adventures of the Green Hercules" or something. That they could milk it to exhaustion. This was supposed to be their Spider-Man, their Superman.

Nothing wrong with the mentioned movies. I love them. But Hulk will not be the usual superhero movie.

Gale Anne Hurd, Ang Lee, James Schamus, Avi Arad, Jennifer Connelly, Eric Bana, NONE of the involved ever sold this as a superhero movie but much more as a deep study of human psyche. It's an actual return to the Hulk's roots, where he was a monster, a scared child, a man in love and much more!

I hope this is not a phase. I hope comic book adaptations are here to stay because there are so many great characters out there who deserves a movie!

Jeremy Williams

05-26-2003, 04:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originaly posted by Gelogurt:
Why not make Kingpin like the Emperor in Star Wars? Just someone you know that exists, that commands, but you can't really get to him. And then, in the inevitable sequel, you can develop the character a whole lot better. It would even make him a lot scarier.<hr /></blockquote>Bravo! You should write or somethin` But something as clever as this would never happen, especialy with the second-tier characters: Avi and his gang see these characters like DD as pop action films with a few cool sexy commercial scenes to make quick-cash. It`s with the big characters and big franchise that there will be more care so has to not look too stupid when there`s a large crowd to see it.

The more appropriate thing would have been for the Daredevil Film to be more "street" or more crime noir than mindless pop action.

About Hulk...I feel that Marvel blew it big time by not doing the Ultimate X-Men vs Ultimate Hulk Event. I`m seeing what they`ve prepared to be published at the time of the movie and there`s nothing exciting there about Hulk(with the exception of the regular title). There has yet been anything as substantial as what DC did during The first Tim Burton Batman movie where you had a great new series in Legend of the Dark knight, there was Arkham Asylum, Digital Justice, The beginning of the Elseworld line with at least four magor Batman progects(Red Rain, Gotham by Gaslight, Holly Terror, Master of the futur, etc...), the rerelease if Killing Joke, Year One, Year Two, Death in the family...and on and on. There was so much stuff and so many GREAT stuff available.

Make me Hulk editor tomorrow and I`ll know what to do.

mike sangiacomo

05-26-2003, 06:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hdefined:
If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.<hr /></blockquote>San Giacomo HERE:
I liked DD a lot, still do. I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. If others didn't like it, fine. I did.

I hope that the Hulk will be a blockbuster. This column just noted that the adaptation had some problems that were more than just nit-picking. But, as I said several times in the column, this does not mean that the movie has not fixed them.

An aside to one poster, yes, I figured out the BRuce Krenzler name, but it just seemed silly to change the name for the movie. ANyone remember that the Hulk was called "Bob" Banner way back in FF 26 (first series?) Then the TV folks thought Bruce was an effeminate name and changed it to David in the lame TV series.
Now Krenzler. Poor guy can't catch a break.
M

jawaplumber

05-26-2003, 09:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jeremy Williams:

About Hulk...I feel that Marvel blew it big time by not doing the Ultimate X-Men vs Ultimate Hulk Event.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Not sure how much I agreed with the rest of your post (although you were right about DC doing a great job capitalizing on the hype of the first Batman flick), but an X-Men vs. Hulk event was something I too was thinking would have been perfect to see in the comics in time for the movies. As cool as it would be to see them get it on in the Ultimate continuity someday, I think that right now would be too soon after the Ultimates' tussle with the big guy. Remember, the intention of many Ultimate Marvel stories is that the big catastrophic events are supposed to be rare and have long lasting effects. To have them happen month after month takes away from the uniqueness.

So, rather than that, I think an X-Men/Hulk miniseries or crossover in the Marvel Universe proper would have been better overall for Marvel and made more sense. It's worth noting that there HAVE been two Wolverine/Hulk miniseries of late, the first by Sam Kieth and the second by Bruce Jones and Scott Kollins. Hopefully, comic book stores are smart enough to push those to moviegoers coming into the stores, especially since the first miniseries is already in trade paperback.

mayhem

05-26-2003, 11:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gelogurte:
Well, that's not ironic. It's naive. It's not bad because it's faithful, it's bad because Mark Steven Johnson blew it. He just put too much story in it. Nothing gets developed for more than five minutes. Besides, all the action sequences suck big time. I mean, they were cut so fast that you couldn't even see what was going on.

And come on: the DD logo on fire? Kingpin killing Matt's dad (for me that's worse than the Joker killing Bruce Wayne's parents)? Matt and Elektra fighting in broad daylight? A fireplace in the sex scene? Kingpin goes to jail? How? Why? And where the hell is Stick? Or Karen Page?

Johnson was so un-original that he got Matt and his dad training on rooftops (Spider-Man anyone?), instead of the gym, like they used to. And that's just the small things. I don't even had a problem with the poor use of CGI or DD doing those Spidey-like leaps.

It's like Johnson read the whole Miller run but just didn't get it. I was watching Changing Lanes again this weekend and I gotta tell you, that scene with Ben Affleck in the church explored Matt Murdock's catholic beliefs better than the whole Daredevil movie.

Why is it so faithful? Because it has Elektra, Bullseye and Kingpin in it? Or because Elektra "dies"? And when you say Miller's run, you're talking about the Elektra story arc. The guy wrote Daredevil for years!

Why not make a origin story with one villain? Why not leave Elektra to a second movie? Why not make Kingpin like the Emperor in Star Wars? Just someone you know that exists, that commands, but you can't really get to him. And then, in the inevitable sequel, you can develop the character a whole lot better. It would even make him a lot scarier. But it's like Johnson got cold feet and decided to tell everything he could in one movie. Or maybe the studio's or the producers' pressure. Who knows?

In my humble opinion, Daredevil it's not faithful to the comic. It just has the same characters.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I also knew when I posted the above post that at least someone would make a point of telling me I'm wrong, and give the real reasons why the DD movie was so bad. But in defence of my claim that the movie was faihtful to the comic,and in response to the points raised by Gelogurte, I'll say this.
Matt many times throughout his alter ego's long comic run has fought out of his costume, and in his suit. But during the scene were Matt and Elektra rubled in the playground, they really weren't actually fighting, they were only playing/flirting with each other.
As for the fireplace scene, I also vividly recall a flashback scene, albeit during the dreaded Chichester run, which featured Matt and Elektra lying in front of an open fire as they spent an evening 'neglecting their studies', as it said in the afforementioned issue.

As for some of the other points you raised, Matt trained constantly on and among rooves throughout the early part of his career, as seen in the MWOF mini, and it makes sense he and his Dad would be working out on the roof since they lived in an apartment.
And IMO having Fisk be the one who killed Matt's dad makes perfect snse in every way. Besides being pretty much exactly the same way it was presented in the '90's Spiderman cartoon, it fits perfectly because it was the past for both Fisk and Matt, and makes sense that at this stage Fisk was still only a small time hood and muscle, as it was before his rise to the top also, where he was still working his way up through the ranks of organised crime. It also connects their origins together in a way that makes there status as arch enemies so much more personal and deeper, like Dr Doom's and Reed Richards, rather than the random way it evolved in the comics.

As for Stick and Karen page well, you said it yourself, there just wasn't enough room for it all. Maybe though in the sequel they'll be featured as it's the perfect opportunity for them, they'd fit perfectly. What I mean is the movie left the possibility for Karen and Matts relationship to be developed later if it's what they decide to do. Likewise Stick could also be introduced like he was in the comic in a retcon kind of way, there was enough room there in the movie for that to happen and not contradict anything that happened. I think maybe the movie just should have been longer, like the Godfather films, to allow more character development, but IMO again I think there was JUST enough time allowed to get enough of it. Only just though. But that's the way the industry works, make 'em short so they can play them as many times as possible a day.

As for the action scenes being badly cut, and the CGI being weak, well I'd have to agree with you there, but it's no better than the CGI of Spidey or Blade. CGI people still look like CGI, they still haven't managed to make it perfect yet.

Anyway I've said enough, as this is a Hulk story not DD, but again I just wanted to say, I don't think it was a great film, only an average one, but I just disagreed with you slightly on what you said.

Gelogurte

05-27-2003, 09:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mayhem:
Anyway I've said enough, as this is a Hulk story not DD, but again I just wanted to say, I don't think it was a great film, only an average one, but I just disagreed with you slightly on what you said.<hr /></blockquote>And that's why we're here! To "compare notes"! If everybody agreed with one another every time... well, what's the fun in that?

You raised some great points. I still desagree with some of them, specially regarding to Stick. I think it would be kinda pushy to say "Oh, Matt did have a mentor" now.

I remember Matt using the rooftops... with Stick! To learn how to use his radar and things like that. And I remember Stick first meeting him at the gym! But those are just details from Man Without Fear, which I love by the way!

I'm sorry, but I just think Daredevil was a complete waste of one of my favorite characters. There's so much NEW stuff we could have seen but Mark Steven Johnson just took what he probably thought was the safe road: something that will please the fans (the Miller inspiration) and please the audience. And end up falling between the cracks. Ten years from now, people will still remember Superman, X-Men, Spider-Man and hopefully Hulk. Hell... they'll even remember the Batman movies.

And they'll say something like "what is the name of that Ben Affleck superhero movie? You know, the one with the dominatrix suit?". No matter how many sequels or spin-offs they plan to make.

It's kinda unfair comparison... actually, it's DAMN unfair since DD is not as popular as those characters. But hey... there was a time when nobody knew Indiana Jones, James Bond, Yoda and even Neo and look at them now!

Travis W. Howard

05-27-2003, 02:02 PM

THE FACTS:

- Universal executives LOVED the film. The story you're recalling is from E!'s rumor pages.. nuff said.

- As someone stated, the name change was explained. It's not permanent, but ask if you were ok with this, every time he changed it in the comic, or TV show.

I do find it odd that they didn't even check ANYTHING remotely connected to the film to make sure it was close. Very odd.

Either way, the film is indeed VERY faithful to the core of the characters. Ross isn't a fascist.. I'd go so far as to say he's portrayed softer than the comic version. Talbot is a out and out jerk, as is David Banner.

They're still tweaking the CGI shots and even successive image released shows this.. there's a lot of talk everywhere about it rivalling and in some cases, exceeding Gollum from LOTR.

Falkner

05-27-2003, 03:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mike sangiacomo:
...the TV folks thought Bruce was an effeminate name and changed it to David in the lame TV series.<hr /></blockquote>"Lame TV series"? "Lame" because it is dated? That show stands up strikingly well to other TV shows of it's time. Granted that's not saying much but to look at it any other way is unfair. It's also the FIRST comic book adaptation that took it's subject matter as seriously. It was a HUGE stepping stone that has lead us to the superhero movies we are seeing now.

As for the new movie, it has Ang Lee at the helm! It's going to be a great movie even if it has NOTHING to do with the comic. I doubt anyone who liked Daredevil will be able to see it as that though.

Jeremy Williams

05-27-2003, 08:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originaly posted by Jawaplumber:
Remember, the intention of many Ultimate Marvel stories is that the big catastrophic events are supposed to be rare and have long lasting effects. To have them happen month after month takes away from the uniqueness<hr /></blockquote>Of course, they should be careful. But since Hulk was freed during The Ultimate War the table was kind-of set to have a good, no-hold`s-bared Hulk brawl with Hulk on the loose. In fact i was surprised to see Banner back in his cell in the next The Ultimates issue. To not cause problem to the fragile continuity of the Ultimate Universe they could just have had Hulk brawl with a lot of damage(Widescreen-style even), essentialy give fans what they didn`t get from The Ultimate War.

I know these things are supposed to be special but the movie is coming. A better argument would be that The Ultimate War was not special at all, it was almost like four fill-ins so it wouldn`t have hurt them to do this thing.

About the Hulk material they could have done, seeing the Wolvie/Hulk team-up, the covers were done by Simon Bizley...could you imagine how cool it would have been to have a whole Hulk series painted by BIZ? Also since the Hulk series right now is more mature and suspense-oriented Marvel could have introduced various geant-size comic format one-shots(a la Superman:Peace on Earth) with numerous creators giving their take on Hulk, in a waky "anything can happen" style, weird characters and wild adventures like it was done at what one time with The Hulk. I`m sure guys like Mickeal Allred and Erik Larsen for instance would have been brilliant at doing that.

Gelogurte

05-28-2003, 03:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mike sangiacomo:
...the TV folks thought Bruce was an effeminate name and changed it to David in the lame TV series.<hr /></blockquote>What I find really odd is that the story I heard was the exact opposite. That Bruce was too much of a mascular name, so they change it to David because Bill Bixby should look fragile and gentle.

manosx

05-28-2003, 10:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gelogurte:
And come on: the DD logo on fire? Johnson was so un-original.<hr /></blockquote>In Johnson's defense on this 1 small issue the DD logo on fire was a direct homage to The Crow. It's one of his favorite films and he wanted to pay it tribute. This is very different from being unoriginal.

:cool:

crackrockcandy

05-28-2003, 11:56 AM

One of the reasons DD was so bad, was that johnson, who clearly loves the characater, forgot to show the audience WHY we love the character. He just kind of went into the movie assuming that everyone who watched it loved DD, and tehrefore did not bother with any type of concrete story whatsoever. Someone posted that it was "soul-less" and I agree. Maybe DD will be a bit better on DVD with the deleted Coolio scene and other add-ins, but overall the movie just came off as being spewed out to make money.

What annoys me, is that now Johnson is not only directing Ghost Rider, but also rewriting the script. This does not bode well for that movie.

Peter David

05-28-2003, 04:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mike sangiacomo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hdefined:
If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.<hr /></blockquote>San Giacomo HERE:
I liked DD a lot, still do. I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. If others didn't like it, fine. I did.

I hope that the Hulk will be a blockbuster. This column just noted that the adaptation had some problems that were more than just nit-picking. But, as I said several times in the column, this does not mean that the movie has not fixed them.

An aside to one poster, yes, I figured out the BRuce Krenzler name, but it just seemed silly to change the name for the movie. ANyone remember that the Hulk was called "Bob" Banner way back in FF 26 (first series?) Then the TV folks thought Bruce was an effeminate name and changed it to David in the lame TV series.
Now Krenzler. Poor guy can't catch a break.
M<hr /></blockquote>Not exactly sure why you keep coming back to this, Mike. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it wasn't changed for the movie; it was changed for the plot. The way the plot is constructed pretty much requires that he have a different last name for the first portion of the film. But he remains Bruce Banner. It's not comparable to the transformation of Bruce to "David" for the TV series, which was just exec whim.

PAD

jawaplumber

05-28-2003, 09:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter David:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mike sangiacomo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hdefined:
If Mike SG actually liked Daredevil and thinks Hulk could be seriously problematic, he just sealed its death warrant.<hr /></blockquote>San Giacomo HERE:
I liked DD a lot, still do. I'll buy the DVD when it comes out. If others didn't like it, fine. I did.

I hope that the Hulk will be a blockbuster. This column just noted that the adaptation had some problems that were more than just nit-picking. But, as I said several times in the column, this does not mean that the movie has not fixed them.

An aside to one poster, yes, I figured out the BRuce Krenzler name, but it just seemed silly to change the name for the movie. ANyone remember that the Hulk was called "Bob" Banner way back in FF 26 (first series?) Then the TV folks thought Bruce was an effeminate name and changed it to David in the lame TV series.
Now Krenzler. Poor guy can't catch a break.
M<hr /></blockquote>Not exactly sure why you keep coming back to this, Mike. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it wasn't changed for the movie; it was changed for the plot. The way the plot is constructed pretty much requires that he have a different last name for the first portion of the film. But he remains Bruce Banner. It's not comparable to the transformation of Bruce to "David" for the TV series, which was just exec whim.

PAD<hr /></blockquote>Personally, I find this to be kinda similiar to the silly criticism of Professor X's "new" wheelchair at the end of the first X-Men movie. I remember reading several comments from fans online complaining about how stupid and cheesy it was, and didn't understand what it was all about til I watched the movie itself and discovered it wasn't akin to a super-hero getting a new costume, as so many fans had made it seem in their comments. It was just the plastic wheelchair Xavier needed to interact with Magneto in prison.

Not to be smooching up, PAD, but I'm glad you chimed in here before there was rabid fanboy paranoia just because Mike didn't explain it properly. Then again, a schmuck like me was smart enough to figure out something was amiss, so I'm sure others caught on, too :)

Jeremy Williams

05-30-2003, 01:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originaly posted by manosx:
In Johnson's defense on this 1 small issue the DD logo on fire was a direct homage to The Crow. It's one of his favorite films and he wanted to pay it tribute. This is very different from being unoriginal<hr /></blockquote>Homages can bring you so far. The first half of the movie was a melting pot of other super-heroes. It was like somebody wanted to creat his own super-hero very quickly and took elements from everyone of them. The origin in slow-mo was very Batman, the roof-top scenes where he first uses his power as a kid was very Spiderman. There was even this journalist getting on the Daredevil case(Ben Ulrich) with his colleagues laughing at him, the same thing that had happened in Batman! The film didn`t have its own cinematograhpy: The whole thing was a mix of The Crow and Batman for the dark shades and Spiderman for the CGI. It was so evident that it came out very pathetic for those who`ve seen more than one movies in their life.

Graeme McMillan

05-30-2003, 07:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jeremy Williams:
. But since Hulk was freed during The Ultimate War the table was kind-of set to have a good, no-hold`s-bared Hulk brawl with Hulk on the loose.<hr /></blockquote>Two things: Ultimate War takes place after the current story arc in Ultimates. And the Hulk is still in captivity at the end of Ultimate War.

Travis W. Howard

05-31-2003, 12:48 PM

Something else.. re-read Ultimate War again closely.. it specifically states that if the Hulk wasn't stupid enough to go around snacking on nurses, he might have escaped.. instead, the failsafe kicked back in and he was subdued by gas and recaptured.

-T

DrDoom

06-02-2003, 05:50 AM

the movie is been made by Ang lee so it must be good...Marvel invested so much in games and comics latest years that this must be a killer (a green one)