Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Corpsesarefun wrote:I loved Kick-Ass, I have it on blu-ray...


*back away from thread*

See, I really liked the film! That's why I read the comic. But the comic was just bleak.

htj wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I've never seen Kick-Ass. After the guy says "Who the hell is this guy" does he also ask "Why is our security camera footage so well edited?".

The first time I watched it, I didnt care for it. My brothers pretty much forced me to watch it again, and I laughed my ass off. So now, I find it pretty decent

I still don't care for it, it's edgy for the sake of being edgy and has no heart or soul.

You should read the comic book, then. Or rather, you really shouldn't. It's just as you describe the film but more so. I hated it.

I read it first, It's awful.

The hulk has got to be one of the worst superheroes there is! Get a grip people!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The hulk has got to be one of the worst superheroes there is! Get a grip people!

Insolent cur!

Well, matty, given your background, I understand your love of all things green, but the hulk, jesus wept!!
As Alan Moore one said (or words to the effect) it takes a great leap of faith to trust anybody that runs around with a rubber mask and cape on.
It's war films we need, not superheroes!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Well, matty, given your background, I understand your love of all things green, but the hulk, jesus wept!!
As Alan Moore one said (or words to the effect) it takes a great leap of faith to trust anybody that runs around with a rubber mask and cape on.
It's war films we need, not superheroes!

Yeah but Hulk doesn't even wear underpants, let alone a mask or a cape.

I like war films, you don't have pick one or the other.

He wears those blue jeans, though, that never seem to rip or tear!! The hulk doesn't need a belt, but with my wasteline, neither do I...:(

Anyway, my point is that there is a lack of depth and originality in films these days. Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can. Once again I blame George Lucas for this. Hey, it's easy!!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:He wears those blue jeans, though, that never seem to rip or tear!! The hulk doesn't need a belt, but with my wasteline, neither do I...:(

Anyway, my point is that there is a lack of depth and originality in films these days. Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can. Once again I blame George Lucas for this. Hey, it's easy!!

When precisely were the halcyon days of yore when all movies were good and original and no one wanted to make money?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:He wears those blue jeans, though, that never seem to rip or tear!! The hulk doesn't need a belt, but with my wasteline, neither do I...:(

Anyway, my point is that there is a lack of depth and originality in films these days. Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can. Once again I blame George Lucas for this. Hey, it's easy!!

When precisely were the halcyon days of yore when all movies were good and original and no one wanted to make money?

About three months in the 1910s, I think.

htj wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:He wears those blue jeans, though, that never seem to rip or tear!! The hulk doesn't need a belt, but with my wasteline, neither do I...:(

Anyway, my point is that there is a lack of depth and originality in films these days. Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can. Once again I blame George Lucas for this. Hey, it's easy!!

When precisely were the halcyon days of yore when all movies were good and original and no one wanted to make money?

About three months in the 1910s, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland_(1910_film)

Nope, they were just ripping off books in 1910.

]

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:\ Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can.

I've liked almost all the Marvel Movies (Except the new Ghost Rider and the 2003 hulk). Me and the Old Man have gone to the Midnight Showing of every marvel flick since....I think the First X-men, and as long as they keep that kind of Track record (IE two bad Movies out of like....What 20?), I know the two of us will keep on going.


It might not be Art, But as long as it's Entertaining, It's all good.

Wait you mean you actually liked the Captain America movie?

I really liked Captain America and I didn't like Thor.

ShumaGorath wrote:

htj wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:He wears those blue jeans, though, that never seem to rip or tear!! The hulk doesn't need a belt, but with my wasteline, neither do I...:(

Anyway, my point is that there is a lack of depth and originality in films these days. Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can. Once again I blame George Lucas for this. Hey, it's easy!!

When precisely were the halcyon days of yore when all movies were good and original and no one wanted to make money?

About three months in the 1910s, I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland_(1910_film)

Nope, they were just ripping off books in 1910.

Made by the Edison Manufacturing Company, eh? Heh, la plus ca change, la plus c'est la meme chose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corpsesarefun wrote:I really liked Captain America and I didn't like Thor.

Me too. I'm surprised by how many people felt the opposite.

Iur_tae_mont wrote:]

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:\ Hollywood don't care about art, they'll milk the marvel cash cow for as long as they can.

I've liked almost all the Marvel Movies (Except the new Ghost Rider and the 2003 hulk). Me and the Old Man have gone to the Midnight Showing of every marvel flick since....I think the First X-men, and as long as they keep that kind of Track record (IE two bad Movies out of like....What 20?), I know the two of us will keep on going.


It might not be Art, But as long as it's Entertaining, It's all good.

Elektra?

Elektra was pretty good, i did like the Captain America Movie. Like I said, the only Movie (Other than 2003 hulk which should be Universally hated by all) Was the 2012 Ghost Rider, because the Story was stupid and it almost seemed like an Excuse to just Scare the gak out of Children (no Joke, I saw about 30 or so kids under the age of about 8 in the Theater that night in Ghost Rider with their Parents and I would be willing to put money down that they haven't slept since then).

The 2003 Hulk was better then the 2009 Hulk. The 2009 was serviceable, but fairly pedestrian. The 2003 version was very flawed but also insanely ambitious for a comic book movie and I'll take failed ambition over successful mediocrity anytime.

There was a pretty good write up about it here.

Ahtman wrote:The 2003 Hulk was better then the 2009 Hulk. The 2009 was serviceable, but fairly pedestrian. The 2003 version was very flawed but also insanely ambitious for a comic book movie and I'll take failed ambition over successful mediocrity anytime.

There was a pretty good write up about it here.

Ahtman and Frazzled agree. The world looks about, nervously.

Ahtman wrote:The 2003 Hulk was better then the 2009 Hulk. The 2009 was serviceable, but fairly pedestrian. The 2003 version was very flawed but also insanely ambitious for a comic book movie and I'll take failed ambition over successful mediocrity anytime.

There was a pretty good write up about it here.

Agreed. The best way I can put it is that the 2003 film at least tried to be something. Hulk 2009 just checked a series of boxes and called it a day.

Thor tried a little harder than Hulk 2009, but IMO it ended up in a similar place -- a decent enough adaptation of the material, but not really a strong movie on its own. Cap was a stronger film than Thor, but still not all it could have been IMO.

Avengers is a little like that too. It's not a great film, but the director and co. did a great job just pulling it all off into something fun and coherent.

Hated the 2003 film. Hulk was an angst-monster, and in situations which Hulk Smash should have been applied liberally and with great success, Banner goes all zen in order to not Hulk Out. I sure don't go to Hulk movies to see Hulk not Hulk Out.

Bottom line, the big problem was that Ang Lee tried to make Bruce Banner: the Movie, not a movie about Hulk. Banner is the alter-ego, not Hulk.

sourclams wrote:Hated the 2003 film. Hulk was an angst-monster, and in situations which Hulk Smash should have been applied liberally and with great success, Banner goes all zen in order to not Hulk Out. I sure don't go to Hulk movies to see Hulk not Hulk Out.

Bottom line, the big problem was that Ang Lee tried to make Bruce Banner: the Movie, not a movie about Hulk. Banner is the alter-ego, not Hulk.

He also got the character fundamentally wrong.

It's Bruce's inner rage that drives the Hulk though, right? Bottomless, enormous rage has to come from somewhere other than the gamma rays. By exploring Bruce you start to understand what makes the Hulk tick. The notion that Bruce was psychologically damaged by an abusive father was explored in the comics a few decades ago, and Lee tapped that material for his film. That film was fundamentally flawed, but at least it tried.

The 2009 film was more or less a scaled-up version of the Bill Bixby show, cardboard characters and all, just without the soft piano music at the end. I'm surprised they didn't change his name to David.

gorgon wrote:It's Bruce's inner rage that drives the Hulk though, right? Bottomless, enormous rage has to come from somewhere other than the gamma rays. By exploring Bruce you start to understand what makes the Hulk tick. The notion that Bruce was psychologically damaged by an abusive father was explored in the comics a few decades ago, and Lee tapped that material for his film. That film was fundamentally flawed, but at least it tried.

The 2009 film was more or less a scaled-up version of the Bill Bixby show, cardboard characters and all, just without the soft piano music at the end. I'm surprised they didn't change his name to David.

Yes and no, bruce banner as a character is defined by repression, denial, and fear. He's a brave man, but in the best storylines he's gripping with the reality that he is also the hulk and that the hulk is a reflection of him. Ang Lees bruce banner was an addict who's greatest source of angst in the film was the fear that he liked being the hulk. It's a dramatic about face from the concept that Bruce Banner is tortured by his dual identity. It was fundamentally wrong. Rufalos Banner was much more accurate. He's a man who has hit bottom and bounced back without giving in. He's much more of a heroic character and a much more fitting comic book film character.

I can credit Ang Lee for being adventurous and very clever with his visual design and framing, but he made a bad movie. Bruce banner was wrong and the hulk fought giant green poodles for like 20 minutes and ended up boxing a cloud in the end. It was stupid.

Well at the end of the Avengers Tony Stark drives off with Bruce Banner, so I reckon the Hulk may make an appearance in Iron man 3 which is rumoured to be in the making.

I would love to see Iron man in the HulkBuster...

I prefer this hulkbuster.



I was hoping it would turn up in the avengers when I heard that they would be fighting eachother, no such luck though

Corpsesarefun wrote:I prefer this hulkbuster.



I was hoping it would turn up in the avengers when I heard that they would be fighting eachother, no such luck though

We can only hope...

Ahtman wrote:

Spoiler:

The scene shows The Other, the leader of the Chitauri -- the alien race recruited by Loki in his attempt to vanquish the Earth -- talking to a mysterious figure. The Other says that they were mislead by Loki and that humans are stronger than they believed. He tells the figure, "To challenge them is to court death." The figure turns, revealing the purple face and glowing eyes of Thanos.

[.

That looks like juggernaut in armor.

That'll be the lack of a neck.

Necks are kind of stupid in suits of armour for a variety of reasons.

Totalwar1402 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Spoiler:

The scene shows The Other, the leader of the Chitauri -- the alien race recruited by Loki in his attempt to vanquish the Earth -- talking to a mysterious figure. The Other says that they were mislead by Loki and that humans are stronger than they believed. He tells the figure, "To challenge them is to court death." The figure turns, revealing the purple face and glowing eyes of Thanos.

[.

Spoiler:

I assume, probably stating the obvious, that the Chitauri are the Skrull? Chins a dead give away.