Daredevil vs. The Hulk: Which movie do you like better?

[mattcolville]

I liked it too, but I think what might have actually turned a lot of people off was that it had too much plot, and not enough "smashing." I really liked Ang Lee's dramatic take, but it almost played like more of a King Kong remake than a cinematic adaptation of a Marvel comic. Cool, but not really the Hulk.

Consider Spider-Man's movie alterations to the origin of his powers. Instead of a radio-active spider its a genetically engineered spider. One line from the female scientist leading the tour and we know that and can move on. Ditto for the webshooters. Okay they're organic. On with the rest of the story.

Did The Hulk really need 45 minutes before the title character makes an appearance? Did it need scene after scene with extensive exposition about nanotechnology, genetic expirimentation, gamma radiation, and how they intertwine?

Did we need the father stories at all? Were they in any way beneficial to the "definitive" cinematic version of the Hulk? Why not have Bruce and Betty working in a lab, he gets blasted with whatever, Hulk's out and catches the attention of the military?

On one hand I appreciate what they were going for, and even the end result, but it also feels lacking in a way the other recent Marvel movies (X-Men, X2, Spider-Man, DD) weren't.

Our culture has for many decades treated comic books as kids stories. Those of us who knew they were a lot more and often had complex and deeply affecting stories found this attitude ignorant and vaguely insulting. Now, of course, comics are more accepted as a legitimate storytelling medium.

It's fascinating to see that same attitude evolving in comic book movies. That certainly threre should be nothing more than bright lights and big explosions in such films. Hopefully we won't have to wait 50 years before something like Ang Lee's brilliant Hulk will be accepted by fans.

 

[stevelabny]

It's fascinating to see that same attitude evolving in comic book movies. That certainly threre should be nothing more than bright lights and big explosions in such films. Hopefully we won't have to wait 50 years before something like Ang Lee's brilliant Hulk will be accepted by fans.

Its ridiculous that people keep saying this movie wasn't liked because it had a plot. The reason people hated this movie is because the plot SUCKED. and at least smashing woulda been entertaining on some level.

When I first heard that Universal execs were worried that the movie was too slow, and plot-heavy and didnt have enough smashing and explosion, i was ECSTATIC. I wanted a movie that wasn't just about a big strony guy smashing stuff. Unforunately the slow , torturous plot they came up with was EVEN WORSE thana mindless smash-em-up wouldve been.

 

[mattcolville]

Its ridiculous that people keep saying this movie wasn't liked because it had a plot. The reason people hated this movie is because the plot SUCKED. and at least smashing woulda been entertaining on some level.

Except that the guy I was responding to WAS complaining about the existence of a plot. And more than one person in this thread has complained about the presence of story and the absence of enough "smash!"

And rather than debates the merit of the film, I'll like to my review which you are free to ignore.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

Our culture has for many decades treated comic books as kids stories. Those of us who knew they were a lot more and often had complex and deeply affecting stories found this attitude ignorant and vaguely insulting. Now, of course, comics are more accepted as a legitimate storytelling medium.

That’s cause the vast majority of the readers are adults.

It's fascinating to see that same attitude evolving in comic book movies. That certainly threre should be nothing more than bright lights and big explosions in such films. Hopefully we won't have to wait 50 years before something like Ang Lee's brilliant Hulk will be accepted by fans.

I liked Hulk, I thought it was decent but I've seen worse movies, and worse comic book movies. Anyhow, I though Ang Lee's ideas where pretty much horrible and sad and he has single handedly ruined any chance of another Hulk movie it seems.

The thing I can't figure out is that all these comic book writers are experts of using art and words to tell a story. Yet I've not seen to many, if any (?) write a comic book movie. Why?

 

[Kai Lord]

Except that the guy I was responding to WAS complaining about the existence of a plot.

Quote someone complaining about "the existence of a plot."

 

[Endur]

I voted for Hulk as being better than Daredevil, but they were both among the weakest superhero movies lately.

Xmen 1 and 2, Spiderman, Superman I and II, Batman I and II, were better.

Electra and Bullseye were pretty good, the rest of Daredevil I didn't care for. Its not that it wasn't good, it just didn't have "excitement."

Hulk was good, but the movie got lost somewhere. Dr. Banner, Betsy Ross, General Ross, and Betsy's father all had good acting. The bad army guy (Talbot?) was too over the top psycho/sadistic. Likewise, the final scene with the Hulk's father transforming into the Absorbing Man didn't flow well. Also, the nobody ever got hurt fighting the hulk didn't make sense (particularly when the hulk threw tanks a quarter mile through the air).

 

[noretoc]

didn't vote for either

Both movies were utterly rubbish! Daredevil with the super human feats and the bad acting. I can't comment on bullseye because I never read about him in the comic. The fact they Affleck was just trying to hard to show that he could do things. It didn't seem natural, like something he had lived with for so long. Also how can a normal man (albeit with super senses and intesive training) jump over ten feet. I had no problem with acrobatics, but the way me made leaps, were immpossible. Daredevil was on the highest end of human agility, not super human. Also, the way he went from meeting electra to bang, being at odds, etc was so fast. It was just so fake. I know it is a superhero movie, but the emotions didn't seem real, it was horrible.

And it was better than The HULK. I just can;t say anything about that peice of garbage. The only good part was the very end, where he say don't make me angry. They tried to hard in this movie. Both movies seemed like they were forceing the story on you rather then letting it develop

The 80's tv movie with daredevil and the hulk (And the one with thor) were better than these.

 

[mattcolville]

Quote someone complaining about "the existence of a plot."

You're joking, right? The first response in the thread?

As for Hulk, I liked this one a lot too. Its Hulk, though...Hulk doesn't NEED plot. Just smashing

Hell, your own response:

Did The Hulk really need 45 minutes before the title character makes an appearance? Did it need scene after scene with extensive exposition about nanotechnology, genetic expirimentation, gamma radiation, and how they intertwine?

Did we need the father stories at all?

You've just identified the plot, pretty much the whole thing except the smashing bits, and asked why it was necessary. Come on.

 

[reapersaurus]

oh come on, mattcolville -
how do you expect people to take you seriously when you say:
Because people thought there was too much wasted story bits, that didn't need to be there (gamma-nano-bot-rads, blah blah, father's early experimentations, etc) you turn around and say that those people are saying there shouldn't have been any plot.

Sorry, but most rational people can understand that "take away some unneeded things" does not = "take away everything."

 

[Kai Lord]

You've just identified the plot, pretty much the whole thing except the smashing bits, and asked why it was necessary. Come on.

So you're under the impression that not being impressed with their choice of plot equates to not wanting a plot at all. Interesting.