|
Snowman_McK posted:What did you think was happening with the Hulkbuster scene then? Why did you think people reacted with the urgency that they did? Why do you think Black Widow ran away from him on the Helicarrier? Why do you think Thor subsequently tried to physically subdue him? I'm not saying the people in the scene aren't worried. You talked about "we," the audience, and we're excited to see the Hulk. The people in the scene are worried because Banner has spent the first part of the movie lying about how dangerous the Hulk is. We see at the end of Age of Ultron what happens when Black Widow doesn't put the Hulk to sleep. He does not go on an insane rampage. He does calmly sit down at the controls of an airplane and fly away. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Jul 19, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not saying the people in the scene aren't worried. You talked about "we," the audience, and we're excited to see the Hulk. So, narratively, a scary thing isn't scary because the audience isn't scared, they're excited? So, it's not weird that he hung out in a Calcutta slum because, if he wrecked it, we get an exciting Hulk rampage? Jesus, dude. I don't even know what the gently caress you're trying to argue anymore. My point was very simple. Hulk + cities = bad. We get this because, aside from any other knowledge of the character, the Hulk has yet to visit a place in the MCU that he didn't proceed to do heaps of damage to. Yet Banner hides in a large, dense city. That's kind of messed up. Also, the other time Black Widow isn't around (she's disabled by SW right beforehand) Stark pulls out the Hulkbuster and we get a long fight scene ending in the demolition of a building. Almost like the message is 'our methods of control are imperfect'
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:So, narratively, a scary thing isn't scary because the audience isn't scared, they're excited? So, it's not weird that he hung out in a Calcutta slum because, if he wrecked it, we get an exciting Hulk rampage? Jesus, dude. I don't even know what the gently caress you're trying to argue anymore. The Hulk isn't scary to the audience. He is scary to some of the characters. I am reminding you to be specific about which you're talking about. Hulk did not do heaps of damage to Rio de Janeiro. If I recall, a few water tanks in a bottling plant are ruptured. He did not do heaps of damage to Calcutta. No damage there at all. He causes some collateral damage in Manhattan, as do the other Avengers. As for the fight in Age of Ultron, once again, Hulk was mind-controlled. If you want to say that no superhero should ever go near a city because they might be mind controlled into a rampage, fine, but it's silly to single the Hulk out on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
As I've said before, I think an implied aspect of the MCU Hulk is that the way he behaves depends on the circumstances in which the Hulk emerges. When Banner voluntarily allows the Hulk to emerge, he's relatively under control and seems to cooperate with Banner's superego somewhere in there. If it's in self-defense, the Hulk lashes out at anything that looks like a threat. With the involvement of mind control, specifically mind control designed to bring out people's worst impulses and make them lose control of their emotions, as Loki and Scarlet Witch specialise in, you get a rampaging beast. There's some implication there that the Hulk is a symbol of the danger and unpredictability of backlash and escalation. The Hulk can't ever be taken lightly, but makes a great weapon so long as you can get far, far away very fast.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
God, you're good at talking past each other. Everyone in the movie is playing up how dangerous the Hulk is. He's not an easy-to-handle asset to the team – they need Black Widow to do a whole "calming down the Hulk" routine after a mission. They can't just tell him to go hit things – when Banner feels secure that it's justified, sure, "I'm always angry", but in Ultron he's very insecure about letting loose and Black Widow has to push him over an edge to get him out. He destroys property in a much more reckless way than anyone else, to the point where my reaction really is "it's a wonder nobody got hurt". In The Incredible Hulk, he really doesn't want to hulk out, and only does so when pushed, and is played up like a horror monster when he does. In Avengers, he really doesn't want to hulk out. All this conveys the picture that in the diegesis, to everyone in the film, the Hulk is uncontrollable, dangerous, and shouldn't be let loose around people. This is also the "expected" theme, with the anger management, "you wouldn't like me when I'm angry", essentially it's what people expect from the hulk. However, the movie never shows any bloodshed. There's loads of property damage, but no-one gets killed. Furthermore, Banner decides that living in Calcutta is the right thing to do, because then he can help people. This doesn't really square. Here are two possible explanations: 1) The Hulk "actually is" that dangerous, we just happen to never see it. It's a PG-13 movie, so just like the Hayes Code film noir where the hero could decide to kill someone, but oh how conveniently someone else happened to shoot them first so that the hero didn't bloody their hands, when the Hulk smashes into a building it just so happens that it was under reconstruction, and empty, and Tony Stark just bought it. When the Hulk is flung through a market, he just happens to miss all the bystanders – not because anything in the diegesis led him to do this, but because the movie-makers wanted to show "dangerous situation, out-of-control monster" while not showing deaths. The decision to hang out in Calcutta becomes either a baffling one from the filmmakers – did Whedon think this through? – or an irrational one from Banner – he either thinks he's got the Hulk under control (he probably doesn't, what if he's hit by a bus etc) or he's just so desperate to atone or something that he can't stand being in the wilderness, and goes to Calcutta against better judgment. 2) The Hulk isn't actually dangerous – Banner has control of the Hulk, and even when "rampaging" the movie shows us that he's pretty harmless unless you're an armed combatant. People in the movies – very often Banner himself – sometimes "unfairly" single him out and say he shouldn't be allowed in dangerous places. "Putting me in a pressurised container underwater is a bad idea" (or something like that) he says when he thinks the Helicarrier is a submarine, but he's just lying to himself – if he were to actually go in a submarine, and he would actually Hulk out, then he would manage to contain himself, or exit the vehicle without dooming everyone else to a watery grave. He's very reluctant to go Hulk, but he's lying to people about how dangerous he is, because... I'm sort of drawing a blank here as to why he'd do this? (You can probably tell I favour explanation 1.) I guess either because hulking out, while not dangerous to innocent bystanders, is unpleasant for Banner, or because... no reason, it's a baffling choice by the writers. (If I include "this doesn't make any sense" in explanation 1, might as well allow explanation 2 to do the same.) The decision to hang out in Calcutta is reasonable, since Banner's just lying about being dangerous – but at the same time it's a bit weird since he seems very convinced of the lie himself. Sir Kodiak, is explanation 2 a fair assessment of your stance here? Banner staying in Calcutta is sort of a point against explanation 1. 1 would make more sense, be more coherent, if they had found him in the wilderness. (At best it's a point of characterisation, making Banner irrational or a hypocrite.) However, I'd say every piece of characterisation of Banner, the Hulk, and others' reactions to them is a point against nr 2. Take the hypothetical example with the submarine, that Banner is hesitant to enter. If that situation ever were to occur in a future Marvel film... I would also expect it to be solved without lives lost at sea! I would actually expect circumstances to conspire to make everything turn out okay, with a sub destroyed but everyone made it to the lifeboats, or something like that. But to me, that's an unrealistic scenario, I'd roll my eyes when it happened, and I would put the responsibility squarely on the filmmakers, assuming the Hulk's characterisation was otherwise the same. I would not expect anyone in the movie to say "well, most people think Banner's dangerous to have around... But he's actually not! Take the submarine episode – nobody got hurt! It's clearly pretty safe to have Banner living in a crowded city, I say let him, even if he hulks out it's no big deal." But enough about fanfiction. What we're given is a series of films with some inconsistencies. Some of these are, to me, very clearly introduced by constraints of ratings, demographics, and a sense of wanting to have cake and eat it too. If we ignore all that, and look at the film as given, the strangest thing is that nobody seems to notice all these baffling coincidences, that the Hulk never hurts anyone even when he's "out of control". Least of all, Banner himself should notice, and stop lying to people. This unfair treatment of the Hulk, everyone acting as if he's a monster with an unreliable leash, when he's actually not, should be criticised. It won't be. Regardless of how you view it, the movies are going to keep this discrepancy – everyone will act as if Hulk is really dangerous, the property damage assessment will agree, and the (visible) body count will (silently) differ. And while I'm going on about MCU Hulk, about "I'm always angry". I never had any trouble understanding that, and I was surprised to see people claim they'd ruined the Hulk by making him "in control of his anger". I read it as it being one-way. He hulks when he's angry, and he has to be angry to hulk. In The Incredible Hulk, they want him to hulk out, and end up dropping him out of a plane to get it to happen. By the time of Avengers, the problem of "it would be nice to have the Hulk now, but I'm not feeling it" is a solved one: he has enough repressed anger, that he can always decide to let it loose. That doesn't mean he's in complete control: if he gets angry when it would be a bad idea to hulk out, he still would. And when he's the hulk, it's not obvious how to get him to stop. (They sort of "magically solve" this too in Ultron, but it's still not pushing a button – it has to be Black Widow doing the special routine.) And furthermore, when someone else thinks it'd be nice to have the Hulk, but Banner disagrees, he can choose not to let loose – unless someone gets him angry (I assume, this hasn't been shown) or cause him physical harm (Widow pushing him off the edge in Ultron).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 09:51
|
|
|
Hulk 2003 was the only adaptation of the Hulk put to the big screen worth paying attention to and I won't listen to a word saying otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Hulk 2003 was the only adaptation of the Hulk put to the big screen worth paying attention to and I won't listen to a word saying otherwise. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
How about a Quicksilver/Wolverine movie called Sonic and Knuckles
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
 In Civil War, we find out/confirm the obvious that lots of people die all the time. It's just not on the screen so Avengers can keep making billions of dollars. Iron man is sad about it, but Captain America keeps a clear head by saying things could have been worse except for the Avengers saving a bunch of lives. This includes the Hulk. Because at the end of the day, the Hulk looks very scary and destructive but he's really a hero. Like if you wanna really sperg out, start counting the lives that Hulk has saved by going into large cities too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
"lots"
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Natasha: You know, for a man who's supposed to be avoiding stress you picked a hell of a place to settle. Banner: Avoiding stress isn't the secret. Can we stop now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Cage posted:Natasha: You know, for a man who's supposed to be avoiding stress you picked a hell of a place to settle. Hahahahaha. I forgot about that line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Watching this video, I can only think of the thread. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7FdrTcP1jQ edit: Aquaman set construction pictures.  
The MSJ fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Tiger posted:He's very reluctant to go Hulk, but he's lying to people about how dangerous he is, because... I'm sort of drawing a blank here as to why he'd do this? The Hulk is dangerous, but not because he's going to start slaughtering random people. Remember who Banner is unhappy about the Hulk having killed after the opening scene of Age of Ultron: a bunch of Hydra agents. The same Hydra agents that Thor is triumphing over the deaths of. The Hulk is dangerous, but so are Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, etc. Banner is worried about the Hulk because he's a superhero, not because he's an insane monster. Tony understands this: "suit up." Banner is worried about the Hulk because he's worried about the loss of his human life, about not changing back, that once he starts he won't stop. This, of course, happens at the end of Age of Ultron. This is why it's not Banner flying away in the airplane, but the Hulk. This is why he refers to the Hulk as "the other guy." This is why the Hulk gets offended when Tony refers to him by the name "Banner." The Hulk and Bruce Banner are two people who share the same body and Banner wants to continue to live his human life, where he can try to make a difference through peaceful means: living in Calcutta, working as a doctor. But that doesn't accomplish all that much. He's angry all the time. And he fears what he'd allow himself to do if he gave into that anger. But not that he's going to slaughter the poor of Calcutta, but that he's going to just keep solving problems with violence, like Thor, like Iron Man,... It's not far off from the dichotomy between Clark Kent and Superman in BvS. He wants to make the world a better place through his normal, human skill set, a journalist, a doctor, but there are problems that seem to require a fist, and this troubles him. But once he starts, where does it end? He has a woman he loves, and that helps ground him. But should she? Or should he keep on the suit? Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Hulk 2003 was the only adaptation of the Hulk put to the big screen worth paying attention to and I won't listen to a word saying otherwise. Agreed
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
quote:Spider-Man Cinematic Universe: How Sony Plans to Build on the Success of ‘Homecoming’ http://variety.com/2017/film/news/spider-man-sony-cinematic-universe-homecoming-1202498770/
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
You know there's a lot to say about that but first and foremost quote:Panitch says “Venom” will draw on the work of John Carpenter or David Cronenberg while promising “more pop and fun.” I mean Do I need to Do I NEED to say anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
For some reason all this Hulk/Banner talk, which reminds me a lot of MoS derails, has made me want a crossover Superman v Hulk movie now so we can determine which character has shittier motivations, settle it via fisticuffs and really figure out truly insane ways to keep collateral damage minimized and deny civilian casualties. Superman and Hulk have fought, right? I remember growing up there was Hulk vs Batman, Superman vs. Spiderman, Xmen vs. Teen Titians and Superman vs. Muhammed Ali but I don't recall any of those tabloid sized specials with Hulk vs. Superman. Google says yes and I remember it vaguely; One big stupid cross over with Marvel vs. DC but I thought Superman fought Thor in that one. Guess I was wrong. Snowman_McK posted:A huge crowd of people who look, sound, dress and act nothing like him, the one qualified doctor in the middle of a slum, who also is white and speaks english. poo poo, they'll never find him there (Shield finds him so easily they don't even bother telling you how they did it) No, it's an interesting discussion and you're right. Like I said, I didn't give the matter much thought at the time when I saw it, and I liked the film. I just went "OK, I get it. That sort of makes sense. He can't live in SF, LA or NY (or probably anywhere else in the U.S.) but probably being in a densely populated area like that probably helps the subterfuge he would require." He also needs internet access and poo poo - a certain degree of technology - which is shown, along with some forms of modern amenities so he can't just go live in the Alaska wilderness or something, so I simply figured he just sort of wound up there one way or the other until he could figure some poo poo out. I didn't get the impression he had a ton of money, allies or even lab equipment and stuff and needed to work but also keep his head down and stay off the radar to a large degree. Seemed he was walking a fine line between what he required as a wanted fugitive, as a scientist and as a person trying to control his temper. Pretty certain his passport and ID and everything were under watch and travel would have been difficult
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Burkion posted:You know there's a lot to say about that but first and foremost I can see maybe what they're going for...in exec speak "Let's make it Big Trouble in Little China but with body horror of the Fly and don't forget the hot babes and explosions and quips."
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Superman and Hulk have fought, right? I remember growing up there was Hulk vs Batman, Superman vs. Spiderman, Xmen vs. Teen Titians and Superman vs. Muhammed Ali but I don't recall any of those tabloid sized specials with Hulk vs. Superman. Google says yes and I remember it vaguely; One big stupid cross over with Marvel vs. DC but I thought Superman fought Thor in that one. Guess I was wrong. I remember that one, it was indeed Superman+Hulk. Him and Hulk and Batman vs. Captain America were the major things in the story, with Batman and Captain America being the ones to realize some greater evil is making thm all fight each other or whatever. They stopped doing these because IIRC someone at Marvel made a comment about DC's characters sucking rear end a long time ago and someone at DC was basically like "as long as ____ lives there will never be another crossover."
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:For some reason all this Hulk/Banner talk, which reminds me a lot of MoS derails, has made me want a crossover Superman v Hulk movie now so we can determine which character has shittier motivations, settle it via fisticuffs and really figure out truly insane ways to keep collateral damage minimized and deny civilian casualties. I've read a lot of criticism about MoS, but it being too shy about exhibiting collateral damage and civilian casualties is a new one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I've read a lot of criticism about MoS, but it being too shy about exhibiting collateral damage and civilian casualties is a new one. No, no, Boat here is just confusing "Superman didn't murder civilians" with "No civilians died because Superman was fighting" One of those, the former, is an objective fact of the movie that a lot of people for some reason do not understand. The other is an idiocy that the movies vehemently disagree with, and go at length to talk about why people die because of Superman's actions. But it's an easy thing to twist the former into the latter if you want to make some half strangled point about who the gently caress knows
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I can see maybe what they're going for...in exec speak "Let's make it Big Trouble in Little China but with body horror of the Fly and don't forget the hot babes and explosions and quips." The Fly, except instead more like Teen Wolf instead of scary, and the fly powers makes him the coolest guy who is good at sports. I also have been on the internet long enough to know that "The Fly except as a hot babe" is a thing people want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
HULK SMASH PUNY KILLCOUNT
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
I loosely recall reading about a Superman vs Hulk story that basically ended in stalemate; they can wale on each other all day, but they're too tough to cause any permanent damage, being in the upper tiers of physical durability in their settings. (Superman usually has super-healing on top of invulnerability) It was resolved with Superman realising what was pissing Hulk off and getting rid of that. Heck, Superman would probably be quite sympathetic to the Hulk; he's basically Superman's own fear of losing control incarnate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
BvS should have ended with them fighting Hulk instead of Doomsday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:I also have been on the internet long enough to know that "The Fly except as a hot babe" is a thing people want. Kinda like Species, in a way. Or I guess Species is like a bangable Aliens. Also  http://i.imgur.com/KMpNINP.webm
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Hulk 2003 was the only adaptation of the Hulk put to the big screen worth paying attention to and I won't listen to a word saying otherwise. I guess they're still allowed to make a She-Hulk movie? honestly I'm glad Marvel went bankrupt and had to sell off its characters or whatever happened. Do we really want Disney to own everything? Do we really want a Marvel Studios Type Comic Book Movie for every one of these characters? Even when they're failing and making garbage movies, it's refreshing to me when other studios like Universal, Fox, and Sony take different sort of shots at what a comic book movie should be like. That's why I'll never have any issues with DC movies until they cram in Marvel Lite stuff. Make it moody make it brooding make it trash, just make it different
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Do we really want a Marvel Studios Type Comic Book Movie for every one of these characters? They're consistently fun to watch, so... Yeah, I do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
We never would have gotten Deadpool or Logan under Disney. That is a fact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:I loosely recall reading about a Superman vs Hulk story that basically ended in stalemate; they can wale on each other all day, but they're too tough to cause any permanent damage, being in the upper tiers of physical durability in their settings. (Superman usually has super-healing on top of invulnerability) It was resolved with Superman realising what was pissing Hulk off and getting rid of that. Depends on which crossover. Hulk also has super healing. In Marvel vs D.C. they wailed on each other taking all kinds of abuse until Superman did his "THIS ENDS NOW!!!" super punch and launched Hulk into a mountain. And the other fights...
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Burkion posted:We never would have gotten Deadpool or Logan under Disney. Acceptable losses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Three scenes of psychic torment:  (Dredd)  (Fury Road)  (Logan)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
First look at Steppenwolf and Superman toys 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Three scenes of psychic torment: My goodness you're a huge dweeb!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Three scenes of psychic torment: Honestly, those two bits were really weak in Dredd and Mad Max (they just looked kinda cheesy and composited), while that scene in Logan ruled. I say this as someone who didn't love Logan, but who does suspect that a sequence with a ton of motion blur type effects might in fact not translate all that well into screenshots. Edit: I also love that you're on a vendetta against Logan of all movies--like, why? At least GotG has tons of partisans and is legitimately somewhat lame. Logan is...okay and lots of people thought it was...pretty good? porfiria fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:First look at Steppenwolf and Superman toys So Superman is Superman and looks like Superman always does. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Honestly, those two bits were really weak in Dredd and Mad Max (they just looked kinda cheesy and composited) Judge Dredd, Mad Max, and the X-Men: franchises built on not being cheesy or composited. e: porfiria posted:that scene in Logan ruled. I say this as someone who didn't love Logan, but who does suspect that a sequence with a ton of motion blur type effects might in fact not translate all that well into screenshots. It also didn't translate well into motion, because it's a very boring effect. Of all the effects available to decipt a horrifying, paralyzing psychic pain, they went with motion blur. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Honestly, those two bits were really weak in Dredd and Mad Max (they just looked kinda cheesy and composited), while that scene in Logan ruled. I say this as someone who didn't love Logan, but who does suspect that a sequence with a ton of motion blur type effects might in fact not translate all that well into screenshots. He didn't like the movie
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:15 |
|
|
DeimosRising posted:He didn't like the movie *Steps up to mike* Ahem. Everyone? Jingle All the Way 2. Is. poo poo. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:51
|
|