Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
I think it was the deliberate comic-book style, with the frames and all. That part annoyed me as well,
|
I didn't find it particularly annoying, in fact it was that stylistic choice that for me made the original film version of the Hulkster more believable. He looked like he belonged in the world as visually created in that movie because it was very much a "comic book" world. Art direction, sets, lighting, editing whatever went into those stylistic choices - for me it created a visual environment in which the CGI (or however it was done) Hulk did not look out of place. The reboot was the exact opposite. A better job may have been done on the Hulk taken alone, but plopped down in the middle of those scenes filmed in that style? Looked a million times more fake to me.
Quote:
|
but I liked it mainly for of the cast. I prefer Jennifer Connely to Liv Tyler, and while I like William Hurt his attempt to channel Sam Elliot didn't work for me. As for Bana and Norton, I liked them both. And I liked both movies.
|
Ditto on all counts there. I like William Hurt well enough but not enough to watch him try and pick up where Sam Elliot left off. Bana and Norton are both faves, Norton perhaps gets the nod for pure acting chops. I do think he benefitted from the fact that the Hulk reboot was clearly meant to be part of the budding Avengers franchise so everyone perhaps had a much better idea of where they were going with the story.