Talk:Hulk (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Change

Should this be moved to Hulk (movie), in line with most other movie disambiguations? [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 03:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No because naming conventions state that they should be (film). Cbrown1023

Summary

If anyone cares, the abusive father was introduced in 1985 by Bill Mantlo in the Incredible Hulk 312. Peter David just expanded on it. And quite a few parts of the movie were taken from Mantlo's run on the book. In general I find that part of the movie summary to be a little biased. To claim the movie deviats from the comic despite the fact that it says those things came straight from the comic? I'm thinking of how to rework that part.

Sequel

Why was the section on Hulk 2 removed? also, the page entitled "Hulk 2" was deleted. Why? There is a sequel coming out. Scorpionman 21:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no sequel in the works. Avi Arad and Eric Bana have tried to hype it up but nothing has been greenlighted and nothing is actually in the works (other than maybe a script but there are lots of scripts that go nowhere). So maybe it should wait until there's officially something to talk about. Maestro1ca 10:10, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

There apparently IS something coming up right now; the movie Hulk 2 is supposedly set to come out in 2007. Right now, it's mainly a speculation, but I think it will probably turn out. Maybe it's an attempt to make up for the first film's poor success. 4.159.5.2 01:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I read something similar to that a few months ago if I'm not mistaken. I can't recall the precise time I read it, but Avi Arad stated that a sequel was in the works and that the Hulk himself would be considerably smaller instead of being, roughly, the size of a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I believe there is also a rumor that the Gray Hulk would make an appearance at some point in the film, although, as I said, that part might be just a rumor.

Avi Arad says a lot of movies are "in the works". He's a business man and wants to make it sound like things are booming for Marvel. "In the works" could mean the movie is in production (like X-Men 3 is in the works) or it could simply mean Marvel is trying to sell the idea to various movie studios who may or may not buy into it. I'm not sure Universal is all that keen on it and Ang Lee's recent comments about the Hulk almost killing his career probably doesn't help. Maestro1ca 9:17, 9 December 2005 (EST)

Okay, until we hear clearly what's going on we should simply assume that either one's possible, and leave the Hulk 2 article alone until there is a specific statement saying that there is no Hulk 2. Scorpionman 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I've redirected Hulk 2 to Hulk (film) until the movie actually goes into production. It still doesn't even have an IMDb page. — sjorford (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hulk 2. — sjorford (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Marvel announced on 28 April that the movie was in development. I have listed it for undeletion. Journeyman 06:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Video Game

Can you really say that the video game spawned a sequel? I thought they clearly said that this new game is not a sequel. It's based on the comic book, not the movie like the first game. Maestro1ca 10:10, 28 September 2005 (EDT)

I think so. But it should be more clearly written. Scorpionman 02:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Ultimated Destruction was completely based on the comic with no relation to the movie at all. JohnBWatt

Hulk's animation

Was the Hulk created by motion capture in this film or was he just computer animated? Scorpionman 02:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

At least some scenes were done with motion capture. I remember seeing video somewhere of Ang Lee dressed up in the black motion capture suit. I'm pretty sure I saw it on the DVD. Maestro1ca 11:57, 29 November 2005 (EST)

Is the expected sequel going to use motion capture for the Hulk? Scorpionman 19:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

First up, I wouldn't necessarily call it an "expected" sequel as it still hasn't been given the official greenlight to start. And until a crew (especially a director), a script, and a budget is in place we probably won't know exactly what they expect to do with the Hulk (although Avi Arad seemed to suggest in one interview that they might go with a man in a padded suit). Maestro1ca 9:21, 5 December 2005 (EST)

Well, the movie is "expected" by many audiences, right? It may not be certain, but many people expect it. Also, "expected" is better than "definitely coming", right? 4.158.210.119 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would predict no, the movie is not "expected" by many but there's no way for either of us to confirm our theories. In the end this movie barely made a profit and had a fairly big negative backlash from movie goers which usually means one should not expect a sequel. "Expected" implies that it is a reasonable conclusion or is considered likely if not certain that there will be a sequel and right now, that's not a reasonable conclusion to be making. If anything I would go with "possible" or "discussed" sequel. Maestro1ca 12:53, 8 December 2005 (EST)

Final confrontation

I'm not that happy with the description of the final battle between Bruce and David Banner, though not sure I can do better without watching the movie again and writing while it's fresh in my mind. The battle is more even and better done than seems to be implied. Btw, I was reminded when I saw this movie of the first Thor/Absorbing Man clash way back in Journey into Mystery around about number 114 or something. Am I just imagining that this meme has somehow found its way into the Hulk movie (presumably via the memories of people who advised on the movie)? I've never seen anyone else claim it, so I guess it's original research. Metamagician3000 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

From the perspective of a non-comic book reader as myself, it'd seem like the final clash between Bruce and David was one of conciousness. There's a deleted scene on the DVD where Bruce as a scientist explains that "Life is both the ability to retrieve and to act on memory. [...] Part of life is death, is forgetting, and unchecked, it's mutateous, it's monstrous. [...] Basically to stay in balance and alive we must forget as much as we remember." So I'm guessing that Bruce was able to forget and give out his memory/life/power. In the end, David took too much of Bruce and mutated to the huge bloated thing screaming "TAKE IT BACK, it's not stopping, TAKE IT BACK!" Really tragic and chilling scene by the way. Anyways, the whole ending's an undoubtably ambiguous, but that's how I understand it. I did some looking around on the Web and I'm surprised to find how little discussion there is about the whole ending. Oh well. 149.99.166.225 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to expand the final-confrontation a bit, with incomplete success. -- sskoog, 21 Sept 2006

Visual style

One noteworthy aspect of the film was the way that various visual effects like split screens, overlays, and crossfades were used to recreate the look and feel of a multi-pane comic book page in a different media. Yet there's no mention of this in the article. I think it's worth some mention. Unfortunately I haven't seen most of the film myself. Pimlottc 07:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

original research

The following section is unsourced and smacks of original research, but I didn't feel comfortable completely removing it, so I put it here. Perhaps parts could be salvaged. --24.81.13.220 19:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

{{spoilers}} The most difficult part of the film for many to grasp was the scientific explanation for Bruce's transformation into the Hulk. A lab accident exposes Bruce to both the Nanobots and the radiation while attempting to save a technician. The irradiated nanobots, designed to repair celluar damage by replicating the cells themselves, react to Bruce's psychological and emotional damage as if it were a physical wound. Thus when Bruce would become enraged, the nanites would sense the un-localized "damage" and begin celluar replication throughout his body. Unlike the previous test subjects, Banner's mutated DNA instructs the nanites to replicate cells in a very specific manner, resulting in a form which combines aspects of all the creatures used in David Banner's genetic experiments. This allows the cells to maintain their integrity, allowing for the massive size of the transformed Hulk. The mixed DNA and sheer cellular density grant the Hulk massive strength allowing him to lift great weights, run with tremendous speed, and leap impossible distances. His dense skin is nearly impenetrable and his tissues regenerate quickly even after the fiercest of wounds. When the rage subsides and the nanites sense that his "wound" has healed, his body breaks down the extra mass, converting resulting released energy into heat. The water released from the breakdown of the cells is quickly converted to steam which radiates away from his body. When he has reached his original form, the process is stopped and Banner is left as he was before. Like the comics, Banner is left with little more than dream-like impressions of his transformed state. The result is two separate entities in the Hulk and Banner, each only vaguely internally aware of the others existence.

The question of where the mass comes from still remains, however.

Another aspect of the film that stirs some uncertainty is the presence of jellyfish references in the film. One possible explanation is that jellyfish have a two stage life cycle. A motile medusa (normal jellyfish) produces a sessile polyp, which produces a medusa and so on. Analogies in this film could be that David Banner is the parent medusa, Bruce Banner in adolescence is the sessile polyp, and after he is exposed to the gamma radiation in the lab he matures into a polyp on the verge of producing medusa. This is parallel to Bruce's newly realized ability to transform into the Hulk. As Bruce's awareness and ability to control his new power becomes more developed, he matures into his whole and complete self, his father's real son and the fact that Bruce is working in the same occupational field as his father could also be argued as parallel to the asexual reproduction event. Bruce's genes are the product of his father's experimentation; they hold great power and possibility. That is parallel to the polyp releasing asexually produced medusae that develop into new individual jellyfish. The bell of a medusa jellyfish may also represent the toroidal fireball (cap) of an atomic mushroom cloud. Some also believe it's because certain species of jellyfish turn green when subjected to stress. For example, when some jellyfish DNA was inserted into the DNA of the monkey ANDI (Inserted DNA), the resulting organism was part jellyfish and has a very slight green bioluminescence to its skin.

Uncited POV

There's some serious POV problems in this article, examples of the "some say"-type of uncited opinion aplenty. I'm going to delete the ones I find, and if someone wants to put cited info back in, please do so.

Also, is MSN Movies something that is often cited as relevant? I left it anyway.

The Shrike 21:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hulk = Modern King Kong?

I didn't realize this until watching this movie last night but did anyone else see the allusions of this movie to the original King Kong movies? Both Hulk and Kong are not particularly smart but incredibly physically powerful. Both at some point have to protect a woman from monsters. It may not be a strong connection, but I think Ang Lee made that whole scene maybe to make this movie have a modern King Kong feel. I might be crazy but it definitely has that feeling. .... Ang Lee was a genius with this source material and anyone who can't see the greatness of this film might have a better time watching some other action movie maybe by Micheal Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer. At least then you don't have to use your head. (I'm talking about the people who were bashing this movie above.) 72.57.10.124 04:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Film Title

Although the film is somtimes listed as "The Hulk", which was the working title according to iMDB[1], the definite article is not a part of the official title. [2]

The official title of the film is The Hulk, which can be justified by looking at the back of the DVD. Otherwise, The Incredible Hulk would simply have been titled Incredible Hulk. Stupid Bowl 22:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The "A reading into the film" section

This section looks like a textbook example of original research. Remove it? Bhamv 09:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hulk002.jpg

Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hulk001.jpg

Fair use added. SkierRMH 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Banner not David Banner

The main plot outline started talking about David Banner, not Bruce. I've just done a quick edit of this as the rest of the article uses the correct name of Bruce. The person who typed it was maybe briefly thinking of the Hulk of the TV show and simply typed this by mistake.

Fair use rationale for Image:Hulk movie.jpg

Image:Hulk movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Workprint

If I recall correctly, there was a workprint of this movie that leaked onto the internet two or three weeks before release, and I'm pretty sure this incident was mentioned in various media outlets. The article fails to mention this. Oore (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

More dollars than sense?

"The film went on to gross $132.2 in North America, and $113.2 in foreign countries, coming to a worldwide total of $245.36 million. Hulk failed to recoup its $137 million budget."

Wow. There's creative accounting, and then there's creative accounting. Dr Faustus AU (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In Hollywood, you have to recoup your budget by making twice amount the cost of your film. For example if your film cost $25 million, you would have to gross more than $50 million to make a profit.—Wildroot (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Generally, the excepted box office shorthand is 2 and 1/2 times the budget. Yet this is still speculation, because theatrical boxoffice is less than half of a film's potential revenue. Video (DVD) accounts for more money these days than the box office. 24.24.244.132 (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete the link? It should proven how much money the film made worldwide and in North America. Even if none of us truly know who's right in the box office business, producer Avi Arad called this film a financial failure. However (as listed in the article) the film was successful with its merchandising. —Wildroot (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

biased review

Why does the writer of this article state "(mostly negative)" when talking about the Hulk's reviews when it is stated just after this the tally of reviews at Rottentomatoes.com and other review sites have the Hulk at 61% approval. How is this mostly negative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.92.12 (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just some crying fanboy who can't get over the fact that this film received mostly positive reviews. Don't worry I already fixed it.—Wildroot (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro edits

this edit is seeing some significant conlfict. I, and aparently, based on his edits, J Greb, both object to it in the lead, and feel that it's a conclusion that requires some citation. Wildroot instituted it, and didn't object when it was removed, but Snowman Guy continues to insert it over and over. He didn't provide the cites J Greb and I asked for, and now blames it on Wildroot's goal of GA Status. We need to resolve this. I'm not going to revert it out again until this is settled, despite the idea that status quo applies, and new editors need to initiate the BRT (Bold, Revert, Talk) process. ThuranX (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, if we have to have this in the lead, it needs to be rewritten without parenthetical commentaries. I'm sick and tired of seeing this lousy form of excuse based writing used in articles. "This eventually lead to the 2008 film The Incredible Hulk (which is a reboot)." can be better presented as "This poor performance led to Marvel Films producing the 2008 film The Incredible Hulk as a reboot." ThuranX (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your new text idea, ThuranX. I think we can easily use it, But will it need a reliable reference?--Snowman Guy (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You got all the sources you need in the 2008 film's article! That's what we're here for. Alientraveller (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have a source directly stating that the poor performance of a film led directly to the decision to make a second? I've seen citations that in spite of the first film's performance, Marvel believed in the character and the good parts of the first enough to try again, which is different than what we're saying now. ThuranX (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hulk (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article meets the Good Article criteria and has therefore been passed. Gary King (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a financial failure

The movie's budget was 137 million and it grossed nearly twice that worldwide, how in the world is that a failure? Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 04:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In Hollywood, you have to make a profit by grossing double the amount of your budget. For instance if a film cost $5 million to make and it grossed $13 million, then its profit would be somewhere around a $3 million profit. I think it's actually 55/45 (the studio keeps 55% while the theater keeps 45%). Anyway, Avi Arad said that Hulk was successful enough in its merchandising and stuff. FYI, I'm not one of those fanboys who hated this film, I actually kind of liked it.Wildroot (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk as a sequel

In the Reception section of this article, it says The Incredible Hulk (2008) is a sequel to the file in this article:

Producer Avi Arad called the film a financial failure at the box office, but declared Hulk's merchandising was successful enough to continue a sequel. This eventually led to The Incredible Hulk.[44]

The reference linked here refers to Product Avi Arad's interview which mentions a possibility of a sequel to this movie ("Hulk 2" in the interview), but nothing to tie it to The Incredible Hulk of 2008. The Wikipedia page for The Incredible Hulk (2008) says that that movie is not a sequel to the one reference in this article.

I think the comment about the sequel should be changed or supported with reference.Droozenrule (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It's clear that although it's not a direct sequel, the response to Hulk (2003) was strong enough for marvel to consdier the future of the franchise, and led to the re-launch decision. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)