Incredible Hulk (2003) vs Incredible hulk (2008) which you like more?

They are both shit like 99% of superhero movies. Bunch of Nerds

<{clintugh}>
 
Hmmm...pretentious and boring versus forgettable cookie cutter action...

I'll give the nod to 2003 for the Hulk doggies.
 
I much prefer Eric Bana over Ed Norton or Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, but the 2008 version is the better movie. It's actually fun and coherent, which is everything I expect from a comic book movie. I'll take that over the bore fest that is Ang Lee's Hulk. That movie had some shit editing and heavy handed father and son themes that just drags it down. Felt like a lifestyle movie at some points.
 
2008 hulk has barely anything going on, just one action scene strung to the next

2003 hulk gets deep into the psychology of the character in a way that nothing has since
 
I haven't seen Hulk since it was in theaters. I rewatched Incredible Hulk recently and thought it was just ok. My biggest problem was Ed Norton who is a fine actor but I didnt think was right for the role.
 
People like the 2003 Hulk?

“That don’t seem right.”
45DFF3C0-B1CA-4074-B482-9FDF3203688B.jpeg
 
Hulk '03 desert scene >>> any Hulk '08 scene >>> Hulk '03 final fight scene

Edward Norton > Eric Bana

Jennifer Connelly > Liv Tyler (by a small margin)

Both villain origin story sucks.

Hulk '03 growing into Giant Man size sucks.

Conclusion: Avengers 1 had the best Hulk.
Almost my exact thoughts on what seems to be an endless debate.

I prefer the Ang Lee movie because he tried to make it cerebral and artsy, even if ultimately he failed to make it a watchable action movie. Several sublime scenes sandwitched between a MLB playoff's worth of big swings and whiffs.
 
I agree. No one has really nailed the essence of the character.

I like Ruffalo, but he doesn't even come across as that angry, even in the 2012 version, where they were still treating Hulk as a bit of a wild card. Even then, by the end of the film, he was playing pretty nicely with others. Since Avengers II, the Hulk has honestly just come across as surly as opposed to consumed with undying rage.

Since the Hulk has been pretty team-oriented since Avengers 1, they've avoided playing up the Frankenstein's monster angle, for obvious reasons; if you do a movie about Banner truly struggling with the Hulk's raw, untamed anger, the movie will have to be about the Hulk; there won't be room to deal with much else.

Honestly, I think that a Hulk movie might need to get the R-rated treatment a la Deadpool or Logan in order to do the property justice. The Hulk as a character study works best when you can create the tension of Banner barely managing to contain himself, surrounded by people who he'll tear through like tissue-paper if he loses control.

For that kind of Hulk movie to work, you need a director who understands the cinematic value of the threat and anticipation of violence. I don't think Tarantino is suitable for this kind of property for a number of reasons, but his sort of ability to create anticipation and tension would be hugely useful in making a Hulk movie work.
I never thought about a R-rated Hulk movie. In a way, the cartoonish property destruction (with zero visible civilian casualties) really does a short shrift to the character. The rage of the Hulk and the terror that Banner may lose control and become him should be more than just a punchline.

Unfortunately in the Disney Marvel era that ain't ever happening.
 
Back
Top