Thanks! Hulk is a perplexing movie because Ang Lee completely failed making a traditional comic book film (aside from the editing and cinematography) because he had great actors and a great dramatic situation. Instead he made a film more akin to Unbreakable, which is much more arty and specific.

Here I go on a tangent:

Hulk really centers on the inner torment of the primary character. The Hulk IS the villian of the film. Nick Nolte and the Absorbing Man are complete afterthoughts of the story, a way to add an action scene to the end of the film. Much like Spider-Man II concentrates on Parker's inner torment, Dr. Ock and Absorbing Man, who incidently both have no long term interesting plans to do with the power they aquire, are just these henchmen added to the story so that it has some "authentic super villian". This, incidently, is why I have so many problems with the Spider-Man series.

Bruce's father plays absolutely no part in directly how Banner becomes Hulk (well, except the backstory), the relationship with Betty and her father, and Hulks subsequent rampage in order to get to San Francisco. The instant Betty saves Bruce by walking down those steps in San Francisco the movie is pretty much over. Lee could have tagged on a clever ending where he re-Hulks out, takes Betty away, drops her off so they could have an intimate moment alone, then escapes in a big action scene, but instead.

In fact, if Lee wanted to make an impact, he could have killed Banner. No cheesy supervillians, no "franchise", just take the plunge and turn it into the Jekyll and Hyde story that it is.

Batman Begins may turn out to be the same way. It's VERY Batman focused, but the villian is a little more active than Hulk or Spider-Man, and a little bit more a part of the backstory of the whole piece. Not the scarecrow though, that part is almost a complete afterthought, mostly created to sell another uneeded supervillian.

Much like Spider-Man II concentrates on Parker's inner torment, Dr. Ock and Absorbing Man, who incidently both have no long term interesting plans to do with the power they aquire, are just these henchmen added to the story so that it has some "authentic super villian". This, incidently, is why I have so many problems with the Spider-Man series.

Ditto. That's one of the reasons why i can't take many comic book adaptations seriously, the cheesy excuses to have a super villain in every movie. I would much rather have that the hero would be the only "anomaly" in the story, because if you have too many "freaks" in a show it quickly becomes absurd.

Well it depends from movie to movie and their stories.

Then there are some stories that cannot do without one. I know little about the spidey universe but the Batman origin movie almost requires one to an extent because of how Batman came to be.

True, but most of the time they seem to be there for the sake of it, without having any deep connection or mutual history with the hero, not being especially relevant to the overall story, with a silly explanation how they came to be (by some accident). A prime example for this were the last two Batman movies.

I think its rather unfair to limit this to the last 2 batman movies only. look at batman returns .. that one was a complete crap fest!!
Most of Batman's villains are psychos, people who finally just lost it and became what they did. The Riddler is one of them. So is Joker and 2 face in many ways even though it required a final tragic incident for them to go over the top.

Why? His parents were murdered before his very eyes by some criminals. That's the reason, he wants to revenge them in a way. At least that's how i understand it (i'm not that much into comics).

Thats the reason why he wanted to take revenge yes. But not why he became the Bat. In some batman comics (year 1 for example) which deal with his origins, it tells the story of how batman went into training for forensics, martial arts and a lot of other things because his parents died. But his experiences back in gotham upon his return defined how and why he opted for the bat. The introduction of common gotham villains like Falcone and the introduction of Scarecrow exist for batman to gain confidence as he goes about hiding himself in the night in a cape and cowl. There is another element butfor that, i'll be throwing in script spoilers.

I think its rather unfair to limit this to the last 2 batman movies only

Thats the reason why he wanted to take revenge yes. But not why he became the Bat. In some batman comics (year 1 for example) which deal with his origins, it tells the story of how batman went into training for forensics, martial arts and a lot of other things because his parents died. But his experiences back in gotham upon his return defined how and why he opted for the bat. The introduction of common gotham villains like Falcone and the introduction of Scarecrow exist for batman to gain confidence as he goes about hiding himself in the night in a cape and cowl. There is another element butfor that, i'll be throwing in script spoilers.

No, they're certainly not the only ones, there are many more (Spiderman comes to mind).

As for Batman Returns being a crap fest, Batman and Robin is a 100-times worse.


Oh ok, but it could also work without the inclusion of some silly, lunatic villains IMO (wants to hide his true identity + is fascinated of bats = Batman).

Hmm..., the whole story around Batman seems to be quite more interesting as i firstly thought. Hope the new movie will adress all those issues more thoroughly than the previous attempts did.

Well i'm hoping the first movie doesn't go into overkill mode and try to explain everything either .. some things are better understood with time ...


there are some great batman ersources if you wish to check them out on the net.

there are some great batman ersources if you wish to check them out on the net.

I thought you've already read the script, shouldn't you know?

BTW BABA, did you celebrate EID today? If so, Eid mubarak :wink:

I have but i have no idea which draft it is. I expect the story to remain the same mainly but not the entire content.

Eid Mubarak hans. I never get to celebrate .. hell, i dont even know if it is today over here. I believe its tomorrow.

The interesting thing about Batman and Robin as a Batman story is it is one of the only pieces of Batman story that I can find that really addresses Batman in a post-angst state of mind. Clooney plays Bats on the edge of retirement. It's one of the only interesting thing about Batman and Robin (although, Freeze's story is still one of the best of any of the Batman villians).

Superman is going to be impressive if they don't burden the story with tons of angst. Maybe the reason I don't like the Batman Begins script is it feels like one more trip down the angst ridden superhero comic. It feels like wallowing in angst, over and over and over and over and over again. The idea that we're going to start another franchise with a tortured superhero strikes me as a tired idea.

I also wonder how they are going to play Peter Parker in Spider-Man III, because I'm about through with his whine as well.

http://www.superherohype.com/news.php?id=2504


BUMP... Here is the actual Pic of "The Scarecrow" from BATMAN BEGINS shown in a Toy Figurine next to a BATMAN Toy Figurine.. I thought everyone said this character was supposed to be so Damn Creepy??? If that's indeed what he looks like, then this looks sad...


http://www.superherohype.com/forums/sho ... ge=1&pp=25

Here'as another closeup pic of him and he still looks like shit and not creepy or intimidating at all.. This is another notch down for BATMAN BEGINS.. :down: