|
|
Post by Werewolf on Jun 20, 2008 16:37:01 GMT -5
Oh right i see! Looking forward to seeing it!
|
|
|
|
Post by darkwolfavenged on Jul 3, 2008 11:40:12 GMT -5
I've seen it now. I thought it was ok, but nothing special. The best thing about it was Tim Roth on good form. I much prefer the Ang Lee version. It is just a more visually striking and more interesting film. I also much prefer Eric Bana as an actor to Ed Norton.
It's interesting to note that this one isn't making any more money than Ang Lee's movie - in fact it will probably end up with less. I just don't think they have found anything to do with the character that grabs an audience.
Bring on The Dark Knight I say.
|
|
|
|
Post by dedwyre on Jul 3, 2008 22:40:52 GMT -5
I've seen it now. I thought it was ok, but nothing special. The best thing about it was Tim Roth on good form. I much prefer the Ang Lee version. It is just a more visually striking and more interesting film. I also much prefer Eric Bana as an actor to Ed Norton. You may literally be the only one. The Ang Lee version was too long and had a terrible villain. Plus, the Hulk never said "Hulk Smash!' which is a real deal-breaker. Regarding Bana, though, I thought he was pretty good and didn't have the hang-up of being a well-known actor in a super hero role. Plus, he was probably easier to work with than Norton, who I hear is very finicky about his roles. Here's the deal: supposedly, the director or whoever asked Norton to write part of the script. Norton wrote a number of scenes, but most were cut from the final version (they should be on the DVD as either deleted scenes or a Director's Cut). They wanted to market the film more towards the die-hard comic fans, while Norton wanted it to focus on stuff mainstream crowds would like. I think the producer's logic was that the Ang Lee version was too mainstream-focused, so they wanted this one to pull in the hardcores, as they would be a guaranteed audience. Norton was upset about not being credited as a writer for the film, so he's avoided doing PR for it a few times. If they ever make a full-fledged Avengers movie, he may not be Bruce Banner again. Of course, I'm reciting this all from my memory of a discussion I had with my local comic shop guy, so I could have some facts mixed up. |
|
|
|
Post by ArcLight on Jul 4, 2008 10:43:29 GMT -5
I've read some of that about Norton and the movie, but it seems like it's been blown out of proportion. It does sound like they brought him in with the understanding he'd have more influence on the final film than what he got, but he's done about as much PR for it as I've ever seen him do for a film, including a skit on one of the late-night talk shows.
He wasn't very likely to get script credit from the get-go as the movie was well into production with locations locked and sets being built. He couldn't make big changes and generally the WGA doesn't consider changes to dialog scenes enough to grant credit.
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It wasn't IRON MAN but it also didn't have mutant poodles or the Hulk fighting a puddle so it evens out. Especially liked the nods to the TV series. And it was quite possibly Stan Lee's best role to date.
|
|
|
|
Post by dedwyre on Jul 7, 2008 10:58:51 GMT -5
Yes, that was definitely Stan's most blatant cameo to date. Which is what I seem to say every time he has a cameo...but he was on screen for probably longer than any previous time. It wasn't as funny as his cameo in IRON MAN, though.
And I can't help but love the very end of the film. You know what I mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArcLight on Jul 7, 2008 23:46:25 GMT -5
Best part is it's the only cameo of his I can think of where he's truly integral to the story. As opposed to just basically being there so the fans can go "hey! it's Stan!"
|
|
