The Incredible Hulk (2008) VS. The Amazing Spider-man (2012)

Which Marvel reboot, would you say was better? I am leaning towards TAS, because it took a lot more time with it's origin story, where as TIH, almost skipped over it entirely, leaving me questions?

SPOILERS

Like if Bruce Banner was so smart, why would he have a laser, beamed into his head, without at least testing it on animals first, or something?

And TAS, also has a villain who's motivations were developed more, where as the villain in TIK, just all of a sudden wanted to become a superpowered monster, without question, and it just felt like a jarring case of macho penis envy that needed be explored more perhaps.

So I guess maybe TAS is better, but weaknesses are certain characters are introduced but not given any background or further exploration, such as Norman Osborne, or that guy who fired Connors then took off, and we never see him again. And you could argue that even if Connors had better motion, his plan to turn everyone into lizards was kind of dumb, even when a high school teenager (Gwen Stacy) was able to figure out a way to stop it.

are but what do you think?

Ahhh, 2 reboots that were both rebooted... after being rebooted... again... after a reboot... of a reboot... again...




Amazing Spider-Man is by far and away the better of the two.
Not only that, it's probably the best movie based on a Marvel character.


I was gutted when they stopped at the 2nd movie and decided to re-re-re-re-re-re-reboot it... again.

__________________

I did like how Incredible Hulk didn't spend too much time on rehashing the Hulk's origin story and instead summed it up using the credits sequence. It had only been a few years since Hulk had come out and Incredible Hulk begins where that movie ended (with Banner in hiding in South America) so it pulls an Evil Dead II-style sequel/remake. Having to slog through Spider-Man's origin story yet again in TASM makes me glad that the MCU seems to be skipping over it completely when introducing the character to their universe.

Anyway, as for which I prefer - definitely Incredible Hulk. Both TASM movies were chores with extremely intermittent highs and protracted lows. At least I can actually see myself giving Incredible Hulk another chance.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

They're both extremely boring movies. But I didn't like the way Bruce Banner's opposite character trait to his alter ego was simply weakness. That's obvious and boring. So I guess I'll go with the Amazing Spider-Man.

In the old TV series, Bruce Banner isn't weak. Intelligence is his main trait, which I think was a better choice. In the Superman movies with Christopher Reeve, Clark Kent isn't played weak either but clumsy. That's much more creative and a lot more fun.

Oh yeah. I don't mind not rehashing an origin story again necessarily, but if they are going to do that, I think they just might as well have made a sequel, to the 2003 Hulk, rather than change the origin story, cause the change results in a plot hole, where as why did Bruce have the laser beamed into his head, without having intelligence to test it something else first. That part just really bugged me and took me out of it, compared to the 2003 one, where it was accident cause he was trying to save someone's life, which I thought made a lot more sense.

So I don't think they have to redo the origin story, but they still should have just kept it so it was an accident, as that would have made a lot more sense I think.

As for rehashing Spider-man's origin story, I thought they did a better job at the origin story in TAS, so is it really that bad to see it don over again, if they do it better?

I like how Spider-man didn't catch Ben's killer and learned a more important lesson about crime fighting as a whole that Captain Stacy indirectly taught him. Where as in Spider-man (2002), when Spider-man confronts the killer, the killer happens to conveniently trip over a pipe and fall out the window cause the writer's didn't want to have Peter have to make the choice of whether Peter was going to kill himself, or not. It just felt lazy in the 2002 one in comparison for me. I also thought that Garfield acted much more convincingly at being scared of the powers he just got, where as McGuire acted all happy about it, without worry, which I found unconvincing.

So I thought that TAS was worth redoing an origin story cause it was done better, and corrected everything that was wrong with the 2002 one. Or maybe it still wasn't worth rehashing, and perhaps TIH is better for that...

I choose...


.... the TV show.

This one?

I love Sam Raimi but his Spider-Man movies are... weak. Not that interesting. The Amazing Spider-Man was an improvement, despite the godawful design of The Lizard.

On the other hand, Ang Lee's Hulk is far superior to the one with Edward Norton, which is complete crap.

I still think that Spider-Man 2 is the best one, and I agree that Ang Lee's Hulk is far superior.

The Incredible Hulk

The Amazing Spider-Man

__________________
You talkin' to me?

The guy's a scientist, I think the intelligence is implied (especially since he has to figure out ways to evade the authorities quickly and quietly without Hulking out, which would take a considerable amount of wits and self-control). It makes sense that "weakness" is Banner's main trait if invoking his own strength runs the risk of him Hulking out - that's the dilemma of the character right there, and calling it "obvious" doesn't do credit to the fact that it is the most sensible and logical development of the character.

Conversely, Clark Kent is Superman's secret identity so it makes sense that he tries to play up Clark's flaws in order to further distract people from the idea that he could be Superman. Superman is always in control of the Clark/Superman divide, whereas Banner only has so much control over the Banner/Hulk divide.

Yeah, I guess that's bound to happen when you compartmentalise things like that - for all we know, it skipped over the other subjects or otherwise doesn't provide the proper context. Then again, scientists testing their experiments on themselves and becoming superpowered heroes/villains in the process happens quite a lot in this genre so I guess it's not that much of a surprise.

Perhaps. It's not like an audience would expect Peter to actually kill the killer, so it makes sense that the writers just straight-up avoid creating an empty moral dilemma that a savvy audience would see through. Having the guy die by misadventure at least reinforces in Peter the idea that the bad guy dying after being confronted with his crimes doesn't make for satisfying revenge. By having it happen immediately, it means that Peter's decision to keep being Spider-Man comes from a place of civic responsibility rather than of aimless vengeance. Compare that against TASM, which plays out like a family-friendly version of Death Wish in having its main character never know for sure if they'd ever avenge their dead relative no matter how many people they brought to justice.

I did my best to judge ASM on its own merits and NOT based on anything that had come before or how I felt it would measure up to the past trilogy. Based on what hit the screen, it was one terrible effort.

I do believe the story would have been far better had they skipped the actual origin altogether. I found it strange that the first act dragged yet no one was really fleshed out or developed. What’s the point then? If you’re going to try and gain emotional attachment to Ben and May then have them do SOMETHING or impart some wisdom. They criminally wasted every supporting character. It’s also sad that they turned Peter from a lovable nerd to a moody outsider who’s kind of a douche-bag.

Meanwhile, Incredible Hulk did it right. It's just a pure shame that some of what was so right hit the cutting room floor. The deleted scenes from that film break my heart. Incredible Hulk could have been a masterpiece had they left all that stuff in there.

As is...

ASM = 4/10
Incredible Hulk = 7.5/10

Oh yeah. Well in other superhero movies, the scientists experiment on themselves out of desperation such as Norman Osborne or Curt Connors.

Bruce Banner was not desperate at all and seemed to have good things going for him, so I just didn't buy at all that they would do that, or didn't feel why the writers had to change it from an accident, in the previous movie.

Also I don't necessarily expect Peter to kill the guy. Maybe he would try to take him in or let him go or something. But I feel that the guy tripping and falling out of a window was a convenient way out for the writers.

I also like the MC not knowing if they were going to avenge their love done, no matter how many people brought to justice better, where as the original killer of Ben in Spider-man (2002), just seems to clean cut and delt with too quickly, or at least that is how I saw it perhaps. But maybe I need to watch it again.

Why exactly did you feel the characters were wasted in the first act? I thought Peter and his relationship with his aunt and uncle was developed well, unless I missed something. I also like how Peter is more flawed. Like how he chose to belittle Flash Thompson deliberately, and had to face the consequences, where as in the original his belittling of Thompson was a complete accident and more like a fluke it seemed.

I guess I feel that I prefer an origin story on it's own merits, rather than trying to skip over it, cause in the case of Hulk it feels like a sequel to a movie that was never made, and what is the point of that really?

But I don't understand why in a remake, you would want to skip over the origin story. For example, when Batman Begins came out, no one was bothered by the fact that they redid the origin story, so why is it so bad to redo it in a Spider-man reboot?

Movie Maxim:
show, don't imply. Not all scientists in movies are smart or good for that matter.
Scientific intelligence is different from street smart and even the hulk had avoided capture now and then.

A movie has to do more than be logical. It has to be creative. When the prime characteristic of the alter-ego is strength, the characteristic of the ego should not be so obvious as weakness. That doesn't mean he needs to be a scrapper, it just means his primary trait should be the least obvious. It should be diagonal on the spectrum, not the polar opposite.

The same principle applies. Since strength is Superman's primary trait, the film wisely avoided playing Clark as weak and played him as clumsy which is on the same scale but not directly opposite. And consequently they avoided weakness as Bruce Banner's in the other other reboot film as well as the Avengers and the 80s TV show. Why do you believe they were all wrong and this film was right?

Screw Spider-Man. I never liked the creep.

But I watched Bill Bixby play Dr. David Bruce Banner. He was the best.

I personally preferred the 2008 version with Edward Norton. The Lonely Man theme did a cameo and Bill Bixby was seen on a tv in the movie in his role on The Courtship of Eddie's Father. Dr. Banner was the lonely man, always on the run.





https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/f...age=gr&GRid=95