Now that there are three movie Hulk's, which do you feel is the best looking Hulk?
My vote is for Ed Norton's Hulk. I think they had the color and look right. He was big, but not enormous.
Mark Rufallo's Hulk.
Best looking? Nortons..
Coolest looking? Rufallos Hulk.
YOu feel they got everything right? Size, color and realistic look?
Well no, not perfect... but he is the closest one of the three. That is Rufallos im talking about.
@MegaSmud: Based on what? Your supposed bias? Ruffalo's Hulk towered over Thor who is roughly 6'4, 6'5 even when he was hunched over for the majority of the time. Norton's Hulk towered over Blonsky who was extremely short at a possible 5'8 at the most. If anything, they were roughly the same height, but Norton's leaner, skinnier Hulk made him look taller while Ruffalo's Hulk was a lot muscular.
@MegaSmud: While I acknowledge that you found that information, nothing there solidly states who the taller of two is, as if it really matters. They are all mild assumptions without any solid proof from even the film's executive producer who second guesses himself. As I said, the best guess is that they were both roughly the same height, with Norton's Hulk looking taller since he was leaner and more cut and Ruffalo always was hunched over.
@Deranged Midget: @MegaSmud: Seriously? You're comparing the two shorter Hulks in size, when they are in fact the same character. Granted, Ruffalo's character was apish, older and hadn't seen the light of rage since who knows when and Norton's Hulk stood upright and brawled like a 1940s pugilist, but it all boils down to gamma-osteoporosis. Banner hasn't been taking care of himself.
@Deranged Midget: I'm simply stating Ruffalo's character suffers from the plight of old age, that he is Norton's Hulk suffering from calcium deficiency. It's a rather poor model, using two actors who are roughly half a foot difference and using other Avengers as a comparison. Thor is shorter in the Avengers film than he is in the comics.
So now you have a midget Asgardian thread to create.
@sesquipedalophobe: What plight of old age? The Avengers film barely takes place 4 years after the Incredible Hulk. It's the exact same character, but merely a different actor and different model, not a "calcium deficiency". I never bothered arguing in the first place. I stated I preferred Ruffalo's Hulk to Norton's and a user became defensive.
In all honestly, on looks alone, I actually prefer Lee/Bana Hulk. I like his colour and how he doesn't look 'buff' per say, compared to the others, he just looks bigger, if you see what I mean. The quality of the CGI is irrelevant because it was pretty good for it's time. I think the Whedon/Ruffalo Hulk was excellent, retaining Ruffalo's features and the ape/animalistic stances and movement were really enjoyable. It would appear Ruffalo is pretty good at motion-capture, I would certainly enjoying watching more of it. I don't really care for the Leterrier/Norton Hulk, it was exceptionally ugly and overly muscled, though the car gloves were cool.
When I read stuff about it online, before the film was released, I usually find that people were miffed about Norton not being in The Avengers. When it was announced way back when that it was gonna be Ruffalo instead I was pleased. I can't stand Norton, his Banner was whiney and annoying, and Ruffalo has an excellent knack for quiet and withheld, but affable, secondary-but-significant-role characters and thought that, applied to Banner, he could do an excellent job. And, quite frankly, he really did.
@MegaSmud eh, I agree anatomically speaking, the Norton Hulk was the least realistic, but I didn't think the CGI was bad, and I certainly thought it was better than the Ang Lee Hulk. But than, I prefer symbolism to realism, and symbolically speaking, the Hulk almost shouldn't look anatomically realistic. He's meant to be rage, and strength incarnate, so they made him so lean you could see the very fibers of his muscles ON PURPOSE. Because it adds to the symbolism (for the record, I wasn't trying to be insulting there, just emphasizing. I may have just joined, but I've seen how easy it is for stupid arguments to break out on these things, so I'm just trying to avoid that.) As for the Ruffalo Hulk: honestly the only thing I liked about it was that he was funny, and that the CGI was probably the best of the three, which is to be expected given that it's the newest. But I didn't like that he moved and kinda looked like a gorilla. Plus, he was way too small for my taste. Anyway, that's just my opinion.
Well, if we're talking movie quality, I'd say it depends. As far as showing Bruce Banner as a character, I thought Edward Norton did the best job. If I recall correctly, he's literally a genius himself, which gives him an understanding of Bruce Banner others would have trouble achieving. If we're talking showing the Hulk as a character, and how accurately they showed Hulks powers, I'd definatly give it to the Ang Lee Hulk. I was not a fan of Eric Bana's acting job though, and that kinda ruined it for me. Oh, and lastly, the story lines of each: Edward Norton actually wanted a more character driven story, but the director insisted on more action, for fear of the movie turning out too much like Ang Lee's "Hulk" I really liked that they focused on Bruce's abusive childhood more, but I just didn't care for HOW they went about it, probably, because, again, I didn't care for the acting. Personally, I prefer Bruce Banner as a character to the Hulk, and character development, to story development, so, naturally, I prefer "The Incredible Hulk." But, again, that's just me. Not sure I properly understand what you mean by "the Chris Evans effect." You mean like have his body type, but on a bigger scale? Or am I completely misunderstanding you? lol
@MegaSmud Oh, yeah, I know what you mean, just misunderstood the comment. I thought the movie itself was a bit too predictable. They seemed to do a great job at capturing Cap as a character though, although, to be honest, I'm not a big Cap fan, more into antihero type characters, and he's more of a stereotypical super hero, so I couldn't fully appreciate it, but still, it was at least worth seeing.
Mark Ruffalo's Hulk. Although I kind of wish he looked a bit younger (last time I saw a Hulk actually looking his age was Maestro lol) His body mass may have been big, but not fat. He looked like how an everyday guy would look if he suddenly took Bane's 'roids and Hulked-out.
Eric Bana? He's awesome in acting, but he's too...manly...for Bruce Banner. (he was much better in Hannah than in Hulk) Plus his Hulk was Shrek with a wig.
Eddie Norton? He's definitely a great Bruce Banner, but his Hulk looked nothing like him, so it was a bit of a stretch to imagine dinky Edward Norton buffing out into Mr, Universe.
Ruffalo looked like an average guy under SUPREME stress, and the Hulk looked like him, except finally exploding. THAT'S what a Hulk should look like.
That was Ruffalo's doing; they strapped the motion sensors to him. So the Hulk you see is the actor.
I hate it that he has like fur or whatever, since I'm so used to a Hulk basically shedding everything off of their body when they transform outside of the hair on their head and *sometimes* eyebrows. But since the Avengers Hulk is always animated, you don't focus in it too much. I'd complain more about his voice than his look anyday though.
And please let us not mention the 2003 Hulk again. Like FightClub, what happens in that film, stays in that film.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment