quote:

Monkey_Boy Jedi
Posted 07 July 2008 05:54 AM

Hey, Tabuno, I noticed you and I differ on "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk". I'm sorry if you've already explained this, but what did you dislike about "I.M." and what did you like about "T.I.H."? I actually thought "I.M." was the better picture. It was truer to the comic (and more fun) than our new picture on the Green Goliath. "T.I.H." wasn't god-awful, but they ruined it for me by having his heartrate be the reason for his transformations (IT'S ANGER THAT TRIGGERS THE CHANGE! I can't believe they did that!), he didn't grow or become stronger with his anger (well, he seemed to get stronger at the end there, but they still made him look like an idiot after taking a punch from the Abomination and THAT is unforgivable! ) and they had him ripping cars apart with the intent of using the parts as sheilds & weapons (The Hulk uses his FISTS! ). They took everything from the Hulk that made him The INCREDIBLE Hulk to me.

It's so nice to be able to actually have a real discussion!

As for Ironman I had three problems with the movie. First, is pretty subjective based on personal preference as to what I emotionally connect to in a movie. While Robert Downey Jr. does a wonderful job, it is the comicbook character himself that I have more problem relating to. Unlike Spiderman, a ordinary kid, Mr. Downey Jr. plays Tony Stark, the son of a high-flying industrialist. Movies that have Everyman as its primary character allows me to more easily empathize with the character. On a more technical basis, the not as effective use of flashbacks and the underdevelopment of familial relationships diminished my appreciation of this movie. I'd really have to see the movie again to offer you more specific examples, scenes and dialogue for examples.

As for The Incredible Hulk, Edward Norton, gets to portray a more contemporary, serious scientist, (personally I identify more with scientists than rich financiers) who must experience the more terrible experience of transformation that in some ways reflects our own internal experience with our own beasts and demons. As I don't follow comicbooks, I don't really connect or compare superhero characters on screen to their counterpart in the comics. Thus, I don't have any problem with the focus on heartbeats and anger as they are parallel and associated together. I conduct groups in anger management and the heart rate is one of the measures by which anger is monitored. As a scientist, I was intrigued and found very consistent that Bruce Banner would attempt to quantify anger by use scientific use of heartbeats, a much more controlled and logical approach to addressing his problem.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
It's so nice to be able to actually have a real discussion!

Isn't it?

I can understand where you're comin' from with your take on "Iron Man". However, I go to these movies for the title character (Iron Man, Hulk, Spider-Man, Batman). I'm weaker than the average human being (I'm not kidding), so I tend to enjoy watching the strong side of a "weak" personality. It's not to say I couldn't feel Peter's frustration with high school, but I'd rather experience his swinging through the city as Spider-Man as he busts up the bad guys because I DON'T know how that feels. (Seems like it would feel GREAT! ) But, yeah, I understand exactly what you're typin' so I guess there's no real argument. We're lookin' for different aspects in these particular films.

quote:

As I don't follow comicbooks, I don't really connect or compare superhero characters on screen to their counterpart in the comics.

It's the geek in me. (You have checked out the "Comic-Based Movies" thread, haven't you? ) I always expect a certain number of changes, but when they make Rogue a small child (along with DOZENS of other awful, awful changes that I won't go into here in "X-Men"), turn Elektra into a friggin' romantic-"action" movie ("Elektra"), have Superman turn back time & stop a villain with his chest emblem ("Superman I & II"), have Johnny Cage wanting to keep his curse ("Ghost Rider") and then take away EVERYTHING that makes the Hulk awesome ("The Incredible Hulk"), well... IT REALLY FRIES MY HASH!

quote:

Thus, I don't have any problem with the focus on heartbeats and anger as they are parallel and associated together. I conduct groups in anger management and the heart rate is one of the measures by which anger is monitored. As a scientist, I was intrigued and found very consistent that Bruce Banner would attempt to quantify anger by use scientific use of heartbeats, a much more controlled and logical approach to addressing his problem.

Actually I THOUGHT that's where they were going, but then he couldn't have sexual relations?! Is this indicating that he is into "angry sex"? That's my only problem with that part, really. Otherwise, it woulda been just fine. I've just never heard of an instance where Bruce Banner had to say "I can't" when it came to that! (If they want a superhero who really can't have relations, look no further than Jackie Estacado, The Darkness. Now that would make one heck of a movie!) Not only that, but he couldn't run or overexert himself in anyway whatsoever! Having such a hair trigger for becoming the monster... that just ain't so great to me. It should be ANGER. The phrase is "You wouldn't like me when I'm ANGRY.", not "You wouldn't like me when my heartrate exceeds 200bpm no matter what I'm doing."

I'm mostly upset at the fact that they went more by the television show than the actual comics that the show was based upon and then "took out" the Hulk abilities they didn't like (his growing with his anger, his long-distance jumping, his anger). This robbed Bruce Banner of his heroic moment (when he sacrifices himself for another, thereby creating the Hulk) by making all of this almost intentional on Banner's part and made the Hulk weaker (and often looking around like he had no clue what was going on). If there's one thing you CAN'T do with the Hulk, it's have him stumble around like a dazed moron! That's just me though. I've probably put the Hulk on a pretty high pedastal (I mean, he lost in a fight with Superman and I still say there's NO WAY he shoulda lost! ), but from what I've read, he's the strongest bastard on this planet when he is full-on-pissed and that's the way I likes him, dagnabit!

quote:

Monkey_Boy Jedi
Posted 07 July 2008 05:21 PM

It's the geek in me. (You have checked out the "Comic-Based Movies" thread, haven't you? ) I always expect a certain number of changes, but when they make Rogue a small child (along with DOZENS of other awful, awful changes that I won't go into here in "X-Men"), turn Elektra into a friggin' romantic-"action" movie ("Elektra"), have Superman turn back time & stop a villain with his chest emblem ("Superman I & II"), have Johnny Cage wanting to keep his curse ("Ghost Rider") and then take away EVERYTHING that makes the Hulk awesome ("The Incredible Hulk"), well... IT REALLY FRIES MY HASH!

Thus, I don't have any problem with the focus on heartbeats and anger as they are parallel and associated together. I conduct groups in anger management and the heart rate is one of the measures by which anger is monitored. As a scientist, I was intrigued and found very consistent that Bruce Banner would attempt to quantify anger by use scientific use of heartbeats, a much more controlled and logical approach to addressing his problem.
Actually I THOUGHT that's where they were going, but then he couldn't have sexual relations?! Is this indicating that he is into "angry sex"? That's my only problem with that part, really. Otherwise, it woulda been just fine. I've just never heard of an instance where Bruce Banner had to say "I can't" when it came to that! (If they want a superhero who really can't have relations, look no further than Jackie Estacado, The Darkness. Now that would make one heck of a movie!) Not only that, but he couldn't run or overexert himself in anyway whatsoever! Having such a hair trigger for becoming the monster... that just ain't so great to me. It should be ANGER. The phrase is "You wouldn't like me when I'm ANGRY.", not "You wouldn't like me when my heartrate exceeds 200bpm no matter what I'm doing."

I'm mostly upset at the fact that they went more by the television show than the actual comics that the show was based upon and then "took out" the Hulk abilities they didn't like (his growing with his anger, his long-distance jumping, his anger). This robbed Bruce Banner of his heroic moment (when he sacrifices himself for another, thereby creating the Hulk) by making all of this almost intentional on Banner's part and made the Hulk weaker (and often looking around like he had no clue what was going on). If there's one thing you CAN'T do with the Hulk, it's have him stumble around like a dazed moron! That's just me though. I've probably put the Hulk on a pretty high pedastal (I mean, he lost in a fight with Superman and I still say there's NO WAY he shoulda lost! ), but from what I've read, he's the strongest bastard on this planet when he is full-on-pissed and that's the way I likes him, dagnabit!

I only periodically read comics growing up and never followed one comic issue with another one so I never became aware of superheros as fully developed characters with backstories. Therefore, I have a detached separation between superhero movies and their source material. I'm a walking half-person I guess.

As for heartbeats, I like your generalization from anger to heartbeats to anything that increases heartbeats (physical exercise, sex) that would turn Mr. Banner into a non-physical character otherwise he'd become THE HULK. I can see the dilemma. I can only hope that future scripts take this difficulty into account. One way is for Mr. Banner to begin to become super aware of his emotions and physical responses and be able to distinguish between various emotions such as hate, angry, greed versus love, exhiliration, desire and channel emotions into various physical expressions - something that we could all benefit from. Perhaps like doctors prescribing antibiotics which don't distinguish between good and bad bacteria, perhaps focusing on heartbeats also fails to distinguish between good and bad emotions, nevertheless doctors keep prescribing antibiotics, Banner keeps focusing on heartbeats. Maybe future playwrights will eventually move in your direction of focusing more on the emotions rather than the physical manifestations of the emotions (that have various originations).

Finally, I can see your point about how THE HULK person, itself, himself has become a caricature instead of a superhero. Perhaps with time, a future playwright can begin to develop THE HULK character as a real separate identity with emotions and intelligence - such would be a fascinating exploration of even our own human psyche.

I can't believe NOBODY'S came on here and placed "The Dark Knight" as THE Best Movie of '08! Nolan's interpretation of the charcters is BRILLIANT! I didn't think I was gonna like this one at first, but I shoulda known that the guy who actually showed us Batman's origin (and made it fantastically entertaining) wouldn't let me down!

The Joker looked completely different than his comic counterpart, but his behavior was RIGHT ON THE NOSE! There's no comparing Nicholson's Joker to Ledger's because they are BOTH perfect for their roles in their respective movies. (Although, you can't help but lean a tad to Ledger's side in terms of just an enjoyably NEW take on a very old character.) I've read that The Joker's behavior was based off of patients who've gone off a certain psychiatric drug. (They twitch & move strangely, lick their lips alot and eventually go psychotic.) He wasn't a goofy Joker like Nicholson's, he was a deeply disturbed man who saw life as a joke & a game.

While it's been ALL ABOUT THE JOKER, we can't forget what was done for Harvey Dent. I couldn't help but love how they handled it with Bruce gaining respect for Harvey through his passion to end crime in Gotham. They showed he had a bit of a dark side when he kidnapped one of the mayor's would-be assassins and used his coin to decide whether he should shoot him or not. How awesome was it when it was later revealed that it ALWAYS came up heads? I know the characters extremely well from the comics, so I knew it was coming, but I couldn't help BUT smile when I saw the reveal later in the movie. Having The Joker apart of Two-Face's origin was also brilliant. Have an insane man drive another to insanity? Makes sense.

Finally, we can't forget what they did for the Dark Knight, himself. Making it so criminals had begun to become unafraid of Batman because he has "rules" was one of the most realistic things they could've thrown into this movie! I don't know why it's NEVER been done before! Creating this atmosphere where it really does seem Batman is doing more harm than good added more depth to how Bruce Wayne saw himself and what he was doing for the city. This wasn't some petty "I want a girlfriend, so I quit" Peter Parker-typa angst! The way they took care of that at the end made EVERYTHING just PERFECT in the Batman legend!

This movie set the bar so high for the next that I'm not sure another would be such a great idea (it could suffer from 3-itis, where the 3rd is usually worse than the first 2! Waaaaay too many examples of this to list.) It also really set the bar for comic-based movies, period. It's proven we CAN have a serious comic flick without having to (completely) suspend reality or having the characters occasionally wink at the camera. We also don't need to have the characters be cardboard cut-outs! Yes. The Best of '08 is a comic-based movie.

By the way, Tabuno, I would LOVE for them to go in the directions you mentioned with the Hulk. I've read that they plan on rebooting it again, so maybe they'll get it right this time!

So far: Dark Knight
Potential threatener: the curious case of Benjamin Button