Hulk 2 Movie is TOAST

[nearmint]

Funny, I have a duel degree in English/Film (trying to get Hollywood to buy my scripts!), and I'm not a huge fan of Amadeus.

 

 

[comicdonna]

Funny, I have a duel degree in English/Film (trying to get Hollywood to buy my scripts!), and I'm not a huge fan of Amadeus.

 

 

Thank god. If you would have said you were, Ze and I were going to turn this whole thread into a fruit grove.

[marvelcollector]

But, still, in the aggregate comic collectors - at least the posters here - have no better than average knowledge of film compared to the population as a whole, and that surprise is what has dawned on me in the past day...

 

 

Are we reading different boards? Or at least gleaning different things from the same one.?

Which is fine, we can have diferent takes on the same subject, but I have honestly found the opposite to be true. For the most part the boards host a large population of avid movie buffs. Obviously we all have differing personal preferences, but all in all I would say the people who post here have a greater knowledge of film then joe public. If only for the reason we are geeks and geeks tend to watch more movies then most people. And among those geeks are indeed the true fanboy types who wanted Hulk to smash more

.

 

 

Ze-

 

I find the opposite to be true...and, again, it has just dawned on me in the past day...the non-comic collectors I know are more knowledgable on average

than what I have seen indicated on these boards...that's my (reluctant) honest

evaluation...

 

 

As for the Hulk movie, I should have left that example out. But, yes many

(maybe not most, but many) of the criticisms here centered on or got around to

that it was slow, boring, not enough action, etc. In context with the many other

comments made about many other movies here, I think that was really the main

strike most people who didn't like the movie had against it; even though some may have cited deviation from the original story or some other perceived flaw.

[Illiterati-migration]

But, still, in the aggregate comic collectors - at least the posters here - have no better than average knowledge of film compared to the population as a whole, and that surprise is what has dawned on me in the past day...

 

 

Are we reading different boards? Or at least gleaning different things from the same one.?

Which is fine, we can have diferent takes on the same subject, but I have honestly found the opposite to be true. For the most part the boards host a large population of avid movie buffs. Obviously we all have differing personal preferences, but all in all I would say the people who post here have a greater knowledge of film then joe public. If only for the reason we are geeks and geeks tend to watch more movies then most people. And among those geeks are indeed the true fanboy types who wanted Hulk to smash more

.

 

 

Ze-

 

I find the opposite to be true...and, again, it has just dawned on me in the past day...the non-comic collectors I know are more knowledgable on average

than what I have seen indicated on these boards...that's my (reluctant) honest

evaluation...

 

 

As for the Hulk movie, I should have left that example out. But, yes many

(maybe not most, but many) of the criticisms here centered on or got around to

that it was slow, boring, not enough action, etc. In context with the many other

comments made about many other movies here, I think that was really the main

strike most people who didn't like the movie had against it; even though some may have cited deviation from the original story or some other perceived flaw.

 

Your blanket statement is noted and will be subsequently ignored. Thank you for dropping by, feel free to do so never again.

[mar-vell]

I am either trying to make a point, or post a scan of the new lickable wallpaper.

 

There. That sweetened up this thread!

 

The apples taste like apples.

 

i have always preferred oranges! Especially the really ripe deliious ones at the southern cal farmers markets! yummy!

[UnrulyAppendage]

As for the Hulk movie, I should have left that example out. But, yes many

(maybe not most, but many) of the criticisms here centered on or got around to

that it was slow, boring, not enough action, etc. In context with the many other

comments made about many other movies here, I think that was really the main

strike most people who didn't like the movie had against it; even though some may have cited deviation from the original story or some other perceived flaw.

 

I think the problem most people have with Hulk is the parts that didn't have action was boring. I can take slow moving movies if they are interesting. I also don't like wall to wall action. I just think the drama was not too well conceived, the Hulk dogs fight was too long and it was pretty boring watching Hulk battle the military.

 

I thought the movie failed from an "art house" point of view. I would like to know what was so great about the character developement and story line that elevates Hulk over more traditional superhero movies. The slow parts in Spider-Man 2 and the character developement are much better to me because I actually cared about them and I wasn't thinking there better be a fight pretty soon. The father-son dynamic between Lex and Lionel Luthor is more engaging from Smallville.

 

I would rather watch any of the "touchy-feely" movies on the Oscar list rather than Hulk. The defenders of the Hulk movie point out it's a non-traditional hero movie and had lofty goals. Well, tell us what we should appreciate other than it is so much more than just an action movie. I think it failed as a serious movie and bombed as a superhero movie. Ang Lee tried to get an audience that would not normally go to a superhero movie, but ended up disappointing the core audience, not to mention the casual movie audience who like big blockbuster events which this movie was hyped as. It's not because they don't get the "slow" parts either. The slow parts were not too well conceived either.

[tth2]

As far as the oscars are concerned, well, sci-fi and fantasy movies usually don't make the cut. These type of movies are never considered "adult" movies. Looking at the list as you can see most of the movies are more about "human drama" than about action/adventure. Sci-fi/fantasy/comic movies are never going to be considered "intelectual" enough to get oscars on a regular basis unless its in the technological awards categories.

While I think there clearly is a bias amongst the Academy against sci-fi/fantasy/action movies, the fact is most movies of this genre are really not made well enough to merit consideration. That's fine, most are made to be the equivalent of junk food: entertain for a couple of hours and then to be forgotten.

 

Sci-fi/fantasy movies HAVE been nominated for Best Film. As I said in an earlier post, in my opinion the only sci-fi/fantasy movies not nominated that in my opinion even would have merited consideration were "Empire Strikes Back", "Alien" and possibly "Terminator". On further reflection, I would add "Blade Runner" to the list.

 

One thing this shows is that having a great director helps a LOT. Of the nominated flicks, ET and Close Encounters were directed by Spielberg, Star Wars by Lucas, LOTR by Jackson, Alien and Blade Runner by Ridley Scott, and Terminator by James Cameron. As Hulk shows, though, even a great director doesn't guarantee critical success.

[UnrulyAppendage]

While I think there clearly is a bias amongst the Academy against sci-fi/fantasy/action movies, the fact is most movies of this genre are really not made well enough to merit consideration. That's fine, most are made to be the equivalent of junk food: entertain for a couple of hours and then to be forgotten.

 

I think 95% of Hollywood films are junk food, regardless of genre, and are not made well enough for consideration. I think Spielbergs early movies are his best efforts, but because of the genre, they were given nods, but not the big award. Chariots of Fire won best pic in 1981, but Raiders of the Lost Ark gets more play time and DVD sales. I am not suggesting popularity is a measure of a better movie, but sometimes the critcally acclaimed movie of the time is due to trends and fads within that community. You take the best sci-fi movie and put it up against the best movie of the Oscar type genre, and it will lose everytime, LOTR being the exception.

 

I think the notion of best picture of the year is based upon the trends of that year. It takes years for a movie to become a classic.

[Sal]

Funny, I have a duel degree in English/Film (trying to get Hollywood to buy my scripts!), and I'm not a huge fan of Amadeus.

 

 

 

why am i reminded of that site "movie queries i love" for some reason?

 

Shaynelords!

[Scheradon]

I think Joe's point was that if Amadeus had been giving the same budget that Ghost Busters and/or Indiana Jones had for marketing, it too would of have made oodles of money and been considered great by a vast majority of the populace. Most people had never even heard of it when it won the oscars.

 

P.S. Hulk was a stinker. Come on, they had HULK DOGS for god sakes!

 

Now we're in the "if" world. This is an argument that would be senseless, since it takes us to fantasy make believe land.

 

Hey, if the Hulk would have had a better story, stayed more loyal to the comic, didn't invent a new villian with his Dad, had better CGI, yada, yada, it would have been a great movie. Unfortunatley, that's not what happened. I agree that it was a stinker, and...oh, those dogs

[Scheradon]

My point is those other movies you mentioned were a lot more entertaining.

 

In your opinion... as a ton of movie fans may disagree with your choices. A lot of things go into a big box office, with "entertaining" being pretty low on the list.

 

Case in point:

 

Phantom Menace.

 

I also found Amadeus far more entertaining than that -fest Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but the second Indy movie made tons more.

 

Well, if you go to movies for other reason's than entertainment, good for you. it's pretty high up on my list of why to go and everyone I know.

 

It seems you are still stuck in the "trying to equate..." discussion, which I believe I already answered.

 

Since you seem stuck on "The Phantom Menace", here's what I'll say to that: People went with the goal of being entertained. Many may not have been entertained as much as they anticipated they would be, thus the stigma it has today. It didn't measure up to it's predecessors.

 

You throw in Indianna Jone's flicks and you further prove my point. people want to go to movies to be entertained. Some efforts fall flat, but this is generally the moviegoers drive to see the film.

 

if Amadeus didn't pull them in, I guess the subject matter wasn't viewed as entertaining enough. This has nothing to do with how well anyone feels they acted, or the movie was directed, or put together. It's like a well written book, but the topic is "Cyclosporidia".

[joe_collector]

My Lord man, go do some research into what draws people to the movies and how they are marketed. You make it seem that big stars, popular directors and sequels have no pull, and it's 100% "looking to be entertained".

 

George Lucas and Peter Jackson could co-direct Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon in "The Reading of the Phone Book" and it would make $200 million the opening weekend.

 

There are people out there that will see EVERYTHING from a director, or anything starring X actor or actress, or even who wrote or scored it or even down to the cinematographer. There are a million reasons to go see a movie, and in today's environment of abject fanboyism, "being entertained" is probably pretty low on the list.

 

I'll give you an example, I just took my kids to see Curious George, and the last thing on my mind was "being entertained". I just hoped the popcorn wouldn't be stale and I think a lot of the parents in the theatre felt the same way.

[Scheradon]

While some may find a movie like Amadeus to be great, there are many who don't have that same feeling about that movie. They shouldn't get insulted as having "poor taste" or "unknowledgeable" about films just because they don't agree with the elitists' view.

 

no offense, but you're the first college-educated person i have ever heard say they didn't like "Amadeus."

 

 

I don't think it's the worst all-time film or something. It's not like I'm saying it resides side by side with "Attack of the killer Tomatoes". It's just not one of my all-time top five movies and doesn't do anything for me. It's not my kind of movie.

 

I was more moved by 'The Natuaral" that year and more entertained by "Beverly Hills Cop". Call that what you will.

 

I'm still sensing this elitist point of view..."college-educated". So know everyone who didn't go to college are dumb arses with no 'taste" or movie "knowledge". And know their votes are the only ones that should count. I've worked with some guys before that had immense movie knowledge, but never went to college.

[joe_collector]

I was more moved by 'The Natural" that year

 

We can definitely agree on this. The ending to the Natural is the ONLY movie to ever mist me up, and I'm the ultimate hardass.

 

If you're a guy and don't get a little emotional at the end, go rent Brokeback Mountain.

[Scheradon]

My Lord man, go do some research into what draws people to the movies and how they are marketed. You make it seem that big stars, popular directors and sequels have no pull, and it's 100% "looking to be entertained".

 

George Lucas and Peter Jackson could co-direct Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Reese Witherspoon in "The Reading of the Phone Book" and it would make $200 million the opening weekend.

 

There are people out there that will see EVERYTHING from a director, or anything starring X actor or actress, or even who wrote or scored it or even down to the cinematographer. There are a million reasons to go see a movie, and in today's environment of abject fanboyism, "being entertained" is probably pretty low on the list.

 

I'll give you an example, I just took my kids to see Curious George, and the last thing on my mind was "being entertained". I just hoped the popcorn wouldn't be stale and I think a lot of the parents in the theatre felt the same way.

 

Ya, and they go see those directors, big stars, and sequels because they have been entertained by them before. Thus, they are anticipating being entertained.

 

Your example leaves out the fact that you went to "Curious George" because your kids wanted to be entertained. Would you have gone by yourself? Probably not, even if the movie would have been well written, acted, and directed because the subject matter was obviously unappealing to you.

[Scheradon]

I was more moved by 'The Natural" that year

 

We can definitely agree on this. The ending to the Natural is the ONLY movie to ever mist me up, and I'm the ultimate hardass.

 

If you're a guy and don't get a little emotional at the end, go rent Brokeback Mountain.

 

Saving Private Ryan was one of the few that got to me. I was ticked when that didn't win the Oscar.

[joe_collector]

Ya, and they go see those directors, big stars, and sequels because they have been entertained by them before. Thus, they are anticipating being entertained.

 

You know I could make the argument, along with the "pulling hair" icon, that people go to see movies because they like to eat popcorn in the dark, and you couldn't disprove it.

 

I think your "everyone goes to be entertained" contention is overly simplistic, while you probably think my "popcorn theory" is a bit greasy and stale, but them's the breaks.

 

At least we both like The Natural.

[Sal]

While some may find a movie like Amadeus to be great, there are many who don't have that same feeling about that movie. They shouldn't get insulted as having "poor taste" or "unknowledgeable" about films just because they don't agree with the elitists' view.

 

no offense, but you're the first college-educated person i have ever heard say they didn't like "Amadeus."

 

 

I don't think it's the worst all-time film or something. It's not like I'm saying it resides side by side with "Attack of the killer Tomatoes". It's just not one of my all-time top five movies and doesn't do anything for me. It's not my kind of movie.

 

I was more moved by 'The Natuaral" that year and more entertained by "Beverly Hills Cop". Call that what you will.

 

I'm still sensing this elitist point of view..."college-educated". So know everyone who didn't go to college are dumb arses with no 'taste" or movie "knowledge". And know their votes are the only ones that should count. I've worked with some guys before that had immense movie knowledge, but never went to college.

 

you're sensing something that isn't there.

 

and then adding a bunch of stuff on top that really makes no sense

[joe_collector]

Saving Private Ryan was one of the few that got to me. I was ticked when that didn't win the Oscar.

 

Did you ever read William Goldman's thoughts on this movie?

[UnrulyAppendage]

Saving Private Ryan was one of the few that got to me. I was ticked when that didn't win the Oscar.

 

Did you ever read William Goldman's thoughts on this movie?

 

"Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969), All the President's Men (1976)) has launched another one of his routine missile attacks on Hollywood. In an interview with Britain's Empire magazine to promote his latest book, Which Lie Did I Tell?, Goldman, among other things, referred to Saving Private Ryan (1998) as "a detestable piece of s***." After allowing that the first half hour of the movie featured some "brilliant stuff, " Goldman went on to remark that the last hour "is as bad as a movie can be."

 

I think there is a point to that. SPR was the first WWII movie that showed the brutality of war and I think that carried it over for critical acclaim. The best part of the movie was the D-Day invasion, but it was not necessary for the movie. You could start the movie after D-Day and not miss anything plot wise. I don't think that makes for a great movie.

 

SPR was succesfull at showing the life of a GI and I gained a new prespective for our WWII veterans and it was much better than Pearl Harbor which "tried" to be authentic. However, I think SPR showed off the technical brilliance of Spielberg, not his creative side.